Make Me A Criminal: Preventing Youth Crime

WWW.IPPR.ORG

MakeMeaCriminal Preventingyouthcrime JuliaMargoandAlexStevens May2008 ©ippr2008

InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch Challengingideas– Changingpolicy

2

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Contents Aboutippr................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Abouttheauthors ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................................................................3 Executivesummary..................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................. 11 1.Currentstrategiesforcrimeprevention............................................................................................................................... 14 2.Cooltobecriminal?Impactsofsocialchangeonattitudes,behaviourandperceptions .................................................. 19 3.YouthoffendingintheEuropeancontext........................................................................................................................... 29 4.Riskfactorsforoffending.................................................................................................................................................... 36 5.Thedevelopmentofmoralresponsibility ............................................................................................................................ 41 6.Raisingchildren:theinfluenceoffamilialandsocialcontext............................................................................................. 44 7.Whatworks?Proveneffectiveinterventions ...................................................................................................................... 48 8.Recommendations............................................................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix:Dataanalysisofthe1970cohort .......................................................................................................................... 70 References ............................................................................................................................................................................... 85

3

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Aboutippr TheInstituteforPublicPolicyResearch(ippr)istheUK’sleadingprogressivethinktank,producing cutting-edgeresearchandinnovativepolicyideasforajust,democraticandsustainableworld. Since1988,wehavebeenattheforefrontofprogressivedebateandpolicymakingintheUK.Through ourindependentresearchandanalysiswedefinenewagendasforchangeandprovidepractical solutionstochallengesacrossthefullrangeofpublicpolicyissues. WithofficesinbothLondonandNewcastle,weensureouroutlookisasbroad-basedaspossible, whileourinternationalandmigrationteamsandclimatechangeprogrammeextendourpartnerships andinfluencebeyondtheUK,givingusatrulyworld-classreputationforhighqualityresearch. ippr 30-32SouthamptonStreet,CoventGarden,LondonWC2E7RA Tel:+44(0)2074706100 [email protected] www.ippr.org RegisteredCharityNo.800065 ThispaperwasfirstpublishedinMay2008. ©ippr2008

Abouttheauthors JuliaMargo isanAssociateDirectoratipprandheadoftheDirectors’ResearchTeam.Sheisalso editorofippr’spoliticaljournalPublicPolicyResearch (PPR),publishedbyBlackwell.Previously,Julia spentfouryearsattheSundayTimesasacommissioningeditorontheNewsReview andpriortothat sheworkedasaparliamentaryassistanttoPaddyAshdownMPandSimonHughesMP.Her publicationsforipprincludePopulationPolitics (2006),Freedom’sOrphans:Raisingyouthina changingworld(2006), BeyondLiberty:Isthefutureofliberalismprogressive? (2007)andPoliticsfor aNewGeneration:Theprogressivemoment (PalgraveMacmillan2007,ed,withNickPearce). AlexStevens isSeniorResearcherattheEuropeanInstituteofSocialServices,UniversityofKent.He haswrittenreviewsofevidenceonpreventingyouthandviolentcrimefortheEuropeanUnionCrime PreventionNetworkandhascollaboratedwithvariousagenciesinthefield,includingRainer,on projectstopreventyouthcrimeandtoreintegrateyoungoffenders.

Acknowledgements MakemeaCriminal couldnothavebeenwrittenwithoutassistancefrommanypeopleand organisations.ipprwouldparticularlyliketothankLadyHamlynandtheHelenHamlynTrust,andthe GatsbyTrust,fortheirfinancialsupport. Wewouldliketothanktheexternalexpertswhohavecommentedondraftsofthedifferentchapters and/orprovidedoriginalanalysisforourwork.Thanksparticularlyforthetimegenerouslygivenby LeonFeinsteinattheInstituteforEducation,DavidBlunkettMP,LadyHamlyn,KateGavronfromthe YoungFoundation,andLordRamsbotham.ThanksalsotoNickPearce,NeilSherlockfromKPMG, SusanHitch,andJaniceHillerfromtheBritishPsychologicalSocietyfortheirintellectualsupport. WewouldalsoliketothankIsabelKesslerandBenGladstoneoftheUniversityofKentfortheir contributiontothereviewofinternationalevidencewhichhasinformedthisreport. Wearealsoverygratefulfortheadviceandguidancesuppliedbycolleaguesatippr.Manythanksto SoniaSodhaforcarryingoutthedataanalysisthatinformedtheresearch.Particularthanksarealso duetoKateStanley,CareyOppenheimandJoeFarrington-Douglas,andalsotoMattJackson, GeorginaKyriacou,VictoriaO’ByrneandRichardDarlingtoninourexternalaffairsdepartment. ThanksarealsoduetoBenjaminLeibowitzandMeghanBenton,whoprovidedresearchsupport. However,theviewsexpressedinthisreportaresolelythoseoftheauthors.

4

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Executivesummary Thisreportmakesthecaseforamoretherapeuticandfamily-basedapproachtoyouthoffending,as opposedtothepresent,morepunitive,system.Theargumentsfortheproposedapproachappear persuasive–notonlyonhumanitariangrounds,butalsointermsofeconomicsandefficacy. TheUKsuffersfromtworelatedproblemsthatdefinetheterrainwithinwhichyouthcrimeisdebated. First,evidenceseemstoshowthatweexperiencehigherandmoresustainedlevelsofyouthcrimeand anti-socialbehaviourthanculturallysimilarcountries.Second,theUKpublicexperiencesmorefearof crimeandconcernaboutyouthmisbehaviourthancitizenselsewhere.Inturn,UKcitizensareknown tofavourmorepunitiveresponsestoyouthcrimethanthoseinSweden,FinlandorGermany,andare lessforgivingofyouthmisbehaviour. Butthismaybechanging.Thereisemergingevidencethatsectionsofthepublicdoincreasingly acceptthatamorewelfare-orientatedapproachtoyouthcrimewouldbefairerandmorelikelyto succeedthancurrentapproaches–particularlyifpoorparentingweretackled.Aprogressivepolicy agendaforcrimereductioncanthereforefindmooringsinpublicattitudes,althoughthetaskisa difficultandcomplexone.

Howdopolicyandattitudesneedtochange? Despitetheimpressiveprogressinyouthpolicy,suchasthatsetoutintheDepartmentforChildren, SchoolsandFamilies’Children’sPlan(December2007),therehavebeenmistakesbothintheprevious legislativeagendaonyouthoffendingandinthediscoursearound,andresponseto,youngpeople andsocialchange. Thispaperarguesthat: Primary-level,universalstrategiesmustimprovethecapacityofcommunities includingfamilies,localcommunity,schools,earlyyearseducationandyouth activitiestosocialisenormsofbehaviourandrespectforcommunities.Thisis particularlyimportantinlightofsocialchangeaffectingtheseinstitutions. Secondary-level,targetedstrategiesmustimprovethecapacityofsocial services,healthservicesandspecialistprogrammestobothreachandimprove thebehaviourofthemost-at-riskgroups,suchasthosecommittinganti-social behaviour,showingemotionalproblems,orhavingproblemsatschool. Tertiary-levelreformsmustimprovethecapacityofcriminaljusticesystemto bothpunishandrehabilitateoffenders. Attheprimarylevelofprevention,problemsexistatthefamilyandcommunitylevel–partlybecause socialchangehasunderminedthetimespentbetweenadults(andparents)andyoungpeople,and becauseengagementincommunitiesis,onthewhole,lessconstructive.Schoolsarealsounableto adequatelysocialisethemost-at-riskbecausechildrenandyoungpeopletendonlytocomeinto contactwithwelfaresupportwhenalreadydisplayingseriousriskfactorssuchastruancy.Themost‘at risk’(inthiscase,excludedpupils)areinadequatelysupported,eventhoughthesearethechildren andyoungpeoplemostlikelytocommitcrime,breachanorderorendupincourt. Secondary-levelprogrammesdonotseemtoreachthemost-at-riskoftenenough,andarenotalways basedontherealevidenceofwhatworksindivertingat-riskyoungpeopleawayfromcrime.Thereis notenoughjoined-upserviceprovision.

Approachestotacklingyouthoffending IntheUKwelackasingleagencyresponsibleforearlyintervention,suchastheministriesforyouth andfamilythatexistinGermanyandAustria,althoughthenewDepartmentforChildren,Schoolsand Families,workingwiththeMinistryofJustice,mayrectifythis.Specific(secondary)community-based

5

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

preventionworkisnearlyexclusivelytargetedonchildrenatrisk,andmostlyincludesleisureactivities, mentoringoreducationaltrainingsuchasthoseviaSureStart.However,theseareaimedatvery youngchildrenandfamilies,ratherthanthe5–12agegroup,forwhichpreventionstrategiesare thoughttobemosteffective.ThisisdifferenttocountriessuchasFinland,SwedenandCanada, whereprimaryschoolagechildrenareservedbyadditionaluniversalleisure,therapeuticandfamily interventionsandactivityoffers,andwhereemphasisisonusingthesemethods. AccordingtotheYouthJusticeBoard,intheUKwespend11timesmoreonlockingupouryoung peopleaswedoonpreventionprojectstostopthemgettinginvolvedincrimeinthefirstplace.

Cooltobecriminal?Impactsofsocialchange Contrarytopublicperception,theUKdoesnotexperiencesignificantlyworsecrimethanelsewhere, butitdoesappearthattheUKsuffersmoreintractableandhigherlevelsofanti-socialbehaviourthan othercountriesinWesternEurope. Relationshipswithpeers Severalsocialtrendshavecombinedtochangethecontextinwhichyoungpeopledeveloptheirsocial andemotionalskills.Thesehavealteredtheamountoftimechildrenspendwithadultsoutsideschool, andthekindsofactivitiestheyparticipateinafterschool.Asaresult,wearelesslikelytoseethe moreaffluent,moreadvantagedyoungpeopleonthestreetsastheyareincreasinglyinvolvedin extra-curricularactivities,whilethemore-at-riskarespendingmoretimeunsupervisedwiththeirpeers. Meanwhile,itappearsthattherearechangestoyouthcultureandattitudes,withyoungpeople becominglesstrustingofauthorityandmoreheterogeneousintheirviewsofsocialissues. ItappearsthatBritishyoungpeoplearebeinggivenbothincreasingautonomyovercertainareasof theirlivesatyoungerages(theirsocial,consumerandsexuallives)andnotsomuchmeaningful responsibility(intermsofhavingfamilies,jobs,andindependentliving).Atthesametime,messages aboutwhatis‘cool’intermsofbehaviouraresetincreasinglybyadvertisersandpeersratherthan parents.Manyanalystshavearguedthatchildrenareunabletocopewiththecomplexandadult environmentthattheynowneedtonavigatefromanever-earlierage,andthatthisisincreasinglevels ofanxietyandrebelliousnessinyoungergroups. Publicfear Adultsocietyhasbegunincreasinglytofearanddemoniseyoungpeople.Studieshaveshownan increasedmediaandpoliticalfocusonyouthanti-socialbehaviour,andchangestoyouthjustice policy,suchasloweringtheageofcriminalresponsibilityto10,havebeenperceivedasencouraging highlevelsofconcernaboutyouthmisbehaviour,andtoencourageBritonstobemorelikelytohold youngpeopleindependentlyresponsiblefortheirmisbehaviourthanpeopleinothercountries. Despiteallthis,itisimportantthatwearenotfatalisticaboutsocialchange.Manypolicyleversexist thatcanrespondtothechangedlandscapeofyouthandredefinetheroleoffamilies,communities andtheinstitutionsofgovernmentinyoungpeople’slives,asweshowbelow.

Riskfactorsforoffending Researchshowsunequivocallythatitispossibletoidentifytheinfluencesonchildrenthatmakethem mostatriskofconductingoffendingbehaviour. Longitudinalstudiesshowthatthemostprolific offendersstartearly,betweentheagesof10and13,andhavelongercriminalcareersthanother criminals,lastingonaverage13years. Thefollowingfactorsemergeasparticularlyimportantinexplainingwhysomeyoungpeople offend:

• Havingaparentwhoisanoffender,poorrelationswithparentsandnotspendingmuchtimewith parents

• Disorderinthelocalareaandlackofadultinterventioninyouthactivities • Lackofextracurricularactivitiesandhavinglittleornothingtodointhelocalarea

6

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

• Havingpeersandsiblingswhooffend • Spendingmoretimewithpeersthanparents • Truantingorbeingexpelledfromschool. Inaddition,severalprotectivefactorsemerge–inotherwords,factorsthatreducetheprobability thatayoungpersonwilloffend:

• Highlevelslocallyofcollectiveefficacy(thewillingnessofadultstoactivelymaintainlocalcivic norms)

• Engaginginpositivesocialisingactivitiesandhavinglotstodolocally • Havingagoodrelationshipwithparents • Havingpositivepeerrelationships • Enjoyingtheschoolexperienceandgettingalotfromit. Emotionalandmentalhealthfactorsoftenemergeasbeingstronglylinkedtoanti-socialand offendingbehaviour.Althoughsocioeconomicfactorsremainabsolutelykeytoyoungpeople’s behaviour,withthosefromdisadvantagedbackgroundsbeingmuchmorelikelytooffendthanmore affluentyoungpeople,indicatorsofemotionalwell-beingatage10–locusofcontrol(thedegreeto whicheventsareperceivedasbeingwithintheircontrol),self-esteem,andsomebehaviouraland emotionalindicators–haveasignificantrelationshipwithbehaviouraloutcomesatage16. Itisimportanttorememberthatnotallyoungpeoplewhodisplaytheseriskfactorswillgoonto becomeseriousoffenders.Weshouldavoidcoercingchildrenandfamiliesintoprogrammesonthe basisthatweknowwhatisgoodforthem,astheevidenceonriskfactorsandinterventionsisless certainthanthis.

Raisingchildren:influenceoffamilialandsocialcontext Cohortanalystsshowsthatyoungpeoplewhohavestrong,supportivefamilyrelationshipsaremore likelytodevelopgoodsocialandemotionalskills.Researchsuggeststhatthenatureoftheinteraction betweenparentsandchildismoreimportantthanstructuralfactorssuchasincomeandparental educationinpredictingthedevelopmentofsocialandemotionalskills.Specificelementsofparenting, suchasprovidingstabilityandsecurity,andauthoritywithouthostility,areproventobeparticularly importantinpositivesocialandemotionaldevelopment. Butparentingisnottheonlyfactorthatmatters.Ananalysisbyipprofthe1970BritishCohortStudy alsoshowsthatsomeextracurricularactivitiesarepositivelyassociatedwithhigherself-esteemand bettercapacitytomanagebehaviour.Theseactivitiesmusttakeplaceinagroupsetting,withaclear hierarchy,clearandwell-defineduniversalaims,andconsistentmeetings. Activitiesthatcombinetheappropriatelevelofskillsacquisition,hierarchy,interactionwithadult authorityfiguresandconstructiveactivityinclude:

• Regularsport,dramaorarts-basedactivities • Activitiesthatinvolveworkingtowardsalong-termgoalandinwhichskillsareacquired • Cadettrainingthatcombinesbothoftheabove. Activitiesthatareassociatedwithoffendinginclude:

• Regularunsupervisedsocialisingwithpeersindisadvantaged,high-crimeareas • Regularsocialisingwithanti-socialyoungpeoplewithoutsupervision. Inaddition,lowcollectiveefficacyinthelocalcommunityisoneofthemostaccuratepredictorsof highlevelsofanti-socialbehaviourinEnglandandWales.Thecentralideahereisthatcollective efficacydoesnotmakeresidentsmorelikelytointerveneinseriouscrimes,ratheritenhancestheir preponderancetointerveneintheprecursorsofcrime,forexamplebydiscouragingthegatheringof teenagegangsordrugtaking.Thusinterventionswhichencouragecollectiveefficacyincommunities arelikelytoimpactpositivelyonyouthanti-socialbehaviour.

7

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Recommendations ippr’sresearchsuggestsseveralproblemswiththecurrentapproachtopreventingoffending.Oneof themostimportantisthelevelatwhichweintervene.Thereisnotenoughbeingdoneattheprimary level(thatis,topreventcrimebeforeitoccurs)totacklethebroadercausesofoffending.Second, onceanindividualisdisplayingriskfactors,orhascommittedananti-socialact,thenatureofthe interventionneedstobedirectedatpreventingthatbehaviourfrombeingrepeated,ratherthanon emptypunishments.Hencetherecommendationsrelatingtothereformofanti-socialbehaviour legislationfocusondirectingyoungpeopletowardssupport,ratherthanonmerelypunishingthemfor theirbehaviour,astoooftenhappensatpresent. Therecommendationsbelowarenecessarilybroadinrangeandscale.Theyaimfirsttotacklethe culturethatpermitsorevenencouragesyouthoffending,andsecondtotargetat-riskyoungpeople withtherightinterventionsandprogrammes. Therecommendationsaredividedintoprimaryandsecondaryformsofprevention. Primaryprevention

1.Tacklingchildpovertyandin-workpoverty Theunavoidableconnectionbetweenpovertyandcriminalityremindsusonceagainofthe importanceoftacklingchildpoverty.Recommendationsonhowthisagendashouldmoveforward, particularlyintermsoftacklingin-workpoverty,areadvancedinotherworkbyippr(Cookeand Lawton2007). 2.Bettersupportforfamilies:towardsaworker/carermodel Strategiestobettersupportfamiliestospendtimewithchildrenandteenagersarekeytoresponding inaprogressivewaytosocialchange.Toooften,thereisadiscerniblyfatalisticapproachtosocial change.Thereisasensethatwewillneverreturntothe1950s‘goldenage’ofnuclearfamiliesand stay-at-home-mothers,andthisistrue. Butwearecertainlynotheadingtowardsmoralandsocialdecline.Thereareagreatmanyreformsand policiesthatcanhelpusmoveasasocietytowardsanothergoldenage–thatofa‘worker/carer’ societyinwhichcaringisvaluedasmuchaswork.Thisdoesnotmean,assomehaveclaimed, replacingparentingwithprofessionalchildcareservicesandlookingtoprogrammesandservicesto repairthejobofpoorparenting(the‘professionalisingoutofchildhood’).Whatitdoesmeanis providingtherightbalanceofsupportandservicetofamiliessothattheyinturnmaybalancetheir workingandcaringresponsibilitiesmoreeffectively. Therangeofreformstosupportbetterwork-lifebalanceforparentsandfamiliespreviouslyidentified byippr(seeBennettandCooke2007)shouldbeactedupon.Theseinclude:

• Betterchildcareprovision • Bettersupportfor,andgreateravailabilityof,flexibleworkingforfamilieswitholderchildren • Betterparentalleavepackages–particularly,betterpaternityleavetoensurethatfathersareable toundertakepropercaringrolesinfamilies. Belowwefocusonareasinwhichnewrecommendationsareneeded.

3.Protectingchildren:banningcorporalpunishment TheGovernmenthaspreviouslyruledoutmovingfurthertowardsthebanningofphysicalpunishment byparents.Butitshouldreconsideritspositioninlightoftheevidencepresentedinthereport,as wellasformoralreasons.Morethan40yearsofresearchshowthathittingchildrenincreasesthe chancesofaggression,anti-socialbehaviourandcriminalbehaviour.Recentstudieshave demonstratedbeyonddoubtthecausalrelationshipbetweenphysicalpunishmentandincreased aggressivebehaviour. Parentsshouldbebannedfromanyformofphysicalpunishmentofchildren.Thiswouldnotonly

8

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

reducecriminalityinthelongterm,butwouldalsosendoutamessageaboutthekindofsocietywe wanttobe–oneinwhichviolenceandphysicalabusearenottolerated–andsendamessageto childrenthattheywillbetreatedasweexpectthemtotreatothers,andthatthelawisthereto protectthemaswellastoenforcenormsofbehaviour.

4.Betterprovisionofactivitiesfor12-to18-year-olds Extra-curricularactivitiesforallyoungpeopleshouldbeprovidedineverylocalarea,withfunding sourcesforstructuredextra-curricularactivitiesconsolidatedintoonefund.Moreover,the£80million thattheMinistryofDefencespendseachyearontheCombinedCadetForces(CCF),mainlyin independentschools,shouldeitherbedivertedtofundingCCFunitsinschoolsindeprivedareas,or continuetofundonlythoseCCFunitsinindependentschoolsthatattractacertainamountof attendance(sayaminimumof50percent)bychildrenatstateschoolsindeprivedareas. Providersofstructuredextra-curricularactivitiesindeprivedareasshouldbeabletoapplytothis consolidatedfundinordertoimproveandincreaseprovisionwithintheirlocalarea.Butinorderto haveanimpactonoutcomes,theseactivitieswouldneedtohavethecharacteristicsthatweknoware importantinimprovingemotionalandsocialdevelopmentinyoungpeople.Inotherwords,theyneed tobestructuredandhierarchical,giveopportunitiesforprogression,provideconsistencyandbe regularlyattended.Activitieswouldthereforeneedtobeaccreditedasfulfillingaminimumnumberof setcriteria.

5.Supervisedplayareas TheGovernmentshouldinvestinanewprogrammeofsupervisedplayareasindisadvantaged,urban areas.Thesewouldbestaffedadventureplayparks,integratedwithstructuredactivity(forexample,in parksoutsideChildren’sCentresandYouthHubs).ThisisinlinewithplanssetoutintheDCSF’s Children’sPlan.Itwouldinvolve:

• Rolling-outaPlayRangerprogramme,startingindisadvantagedareas • IntegratinglandscapedplaysitesintoYouthHubdesignandplanning • Providingstaffedadventureplaygroundsindisadvantagedareas • Initiatingaworkforcedevelopmentprogrammefortheplaysector,withrecruitmentfocusedon localadults

• Offeringsubsidisedaccesstoindoorplayareasfordisadvantagedyoungpeople. Furtherplansshouldbemadetotackletraffic-safetyissuesinurbanareas,andtomakeareasmore childfriendly.

6.Supportingcollectiveefficacy Thereareseveralwaysinwhichchangescouldbemadetoplanningandregulationpolicythatwould helptosupportarichervarietyofpublicspacesandplaceswherepeoplecanmeet.Amongthemost importantideasmightbe:

• Carryingoutregularauditsof‘congregationalspaces’ineachneighbourhoodtobeconductedby localauthorities

• Introducingan‘InvestorinCommunity’badgeforcommercialdevelopers • Preparingbetterstrategiesforinvolvinglocalpeopleinplanning • Ensuringthatthedevelopmentanduseofsharedspacesupportstheaboverecommendations • Introducingtargetstoencouragethedevelopmentoflocalactivitiesthatarecollectiveand participative.TothisendthereshouldaPublicServiceAgreement(PSA)targettoencourage collectiveandcommunity-ledculturalactivities–particularlyamongthosefromprioritygroups andindisadvantagedcommunitiesandthosethatencouragethemixingofdifferentagegroups.

• CharginglocalauthoritieswithdrawingupCommunityPlanspromotingthelong-termwelfareof theirareas.

9

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Othermeasuresshouldpromotetheactiveengagementofadultsinmaintainingcivicorderintheir localareas–forexample: • ‘Facethepublic’sessionsinitiatedbytheGovernment’sRespectActionPlanshouldbeexpanded tomirrorthemodelofSaferCommunityCouncilsdevelopedinNewZealand.Inthesesessions, parents,localauthorityrepresentatives,teachersfromlocalschools,representativesofyoung people’sgroups,localwomen’sgroups,localbusinessandchurchgroupsmeetregularlywiththe localpolicetodebatecommunityissues. • Schoolsshouldbeencouragedtosetupparentgroupstomutuallyagreeonrulesforchildren. Thereareseveralexamplesofinner-cityLondonschoolstakingtheinitiativeinsettingupparent groups,whichmeetregularlytodiscussandagreeonacceptablebehavioursforstudents.Thereis currentlyalackofevidenceoftheeffectivenessofsuchschemes,soitwouldbeworthinvesting inaseriesofpilotschemestotestthevalueoftheseandotherinitiatives.

7.Welfareteamsinprimaryschools ThesystemofwelfaresupportinEnglishandWelshschoolsisnotfocusedenoughonearly intervention,andthestatutoryframeworkonlykicksinwhenchildrenbegintomissschool–bywhich timeitismoredifficulttore-engagechildrenandyoungpeoplewiththeireducation.Thereisnot enoughcoordinationbetweenschoolsandsocialservicestopickuponproblemswhentheyoccurat anearlystage. Localauthoritiesshouldemploy‘welfareteams’comprisedofatleastonechildpsychologist,achild psychiatrist,afamilyworker,acounsellorandaschoolnursetoundertakeschoolvisits.Theseteams shouldbebasedwithinschools.AsimilarapproachinAlbertaProvince,Canada,suggeststhatone teamshouldservicenomorethanthreeschoolsinalocalarea,onarotatingcycle,tomeetwith childrenandmonitortheirwelfare.Theseteamsshouldbemadeavailabletoallchildren,andshould meetwitheachchildatleastonceayear.Theyshouldbetaskedwithreferringchildrenandtheir familiestoappropriatesupportservices,andwouldreplacethecurrentroleoftheschoolwelfare officer. Secondaryprevention

8.SureStartPlus:atargetedapproachforat-risk5-12s Thereisaclearneedforacoordinated,properlytargetedbutnationalserviceforchildrenatriskof crime–particularlyforthoseofprimaryschoolage–thattacklesthosefactorswithinfamiliesand communitiesthatcanleadtoyouthcrime.Thispublicserviceshouldbeintroducedinlinewith previousipprrecommendations–particularlytheideabehind‘SureFutures’,recommendedin previousipprwork(Edwards2004)–aservicedesignedtoaddresstheneedsofolderchildrenand teenagers. SureStartPluswouldbeanextensionoftheschemeofthesamenamecurrentlybeingpilotedwith teenageparentsandtheirchildren.Itshouldbeacoherentservicethatreachesthosechildrenwhoare atriskofprolificoffendingfromages5to12:aSureStartPlusprogrammedirectedatkeepingyoung childrenoutofcrimethatwouldpushforwardthegainsmadeatSureStartfortheage2-5s. Ultimately,thisshouldbedevelopedandimplementedinabroader,moreinclusivewayinorderto reachallparents,followingaprimary,notsecondary,approach,althoughthiswilldependonresource availability. Althoughprovisionandservicesofferedshouldberesponsivetolocalneed,SureStartPlusshould offerthefollowingtypesofinterventionthatarealreadyofferedinsomepartsofthecountry,across thenation:

• Cognitivebehaviouraltherapytoaddressimpulsivenessandotherpersonalitytraitsthatleadto criminalactivity

• Multisystemictherapyforthosewiththemostcomplexneeds • Intensiveeducationinterventionsforthosewithpoorliteracyattainment • Targetedparentingprogrammessuchasfunctionalfamilytherapy.

10

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Touchinghard-to-reachgroups Theschemeshouldbetargetedgeographicallyatthemostdeprivedareas,butweneedtobeaware thatthisinitselfwillnotnecessarilyreachthehardest-to-reachgroups.Wethereforesuggestadual approach:first,geographicaltargeting,second,anelementofindividualentitlementforat-risk childrentoensurethattheservicereachesthosewhoneeditthemost.Otherwise,children’sabilityto accesstheinterventionmaywellbelimitedbylackofparentalinterestorotherfactorswhichmakeit difficultforthepooresttoattend.Onewayinwhichthiscouldbedeliveredisthroughindividual budget-holding,currentlybeingpilotedin16areas. 9.ReformofASBOlegislation Anti-socialbehaviourlegislationshouldbeexplicitlyframedasawayofdirectingthemostat-risk youngpeopleandtheirfamiliestowardsappropriatesupportandservicesinordertodivertyoung peoplefromcrime:

• Anti-SocialBehaviourOrders(ASBOs)shouldnotbeusedonchildrenyoungerthan14unless accompaniedbyFamilyorParentingOrders.Instead,FamilyandParentingOrdersshouldbeused toimprovethefamilycontextinwhichthebehaviouroccurs,ortoensureappropriatecareforthe childinextremesituations,suchasfostercareoradditionalservicesupportforthefamily.

• IndividualSupportOrdersshouldbeusedwhereappropriate,alongsideFamilyandParenting Orders,totargetthesocialcontextinwhichoffendingoccurs–inotherwords,todirectchildren topurposefulactivitiesinthelocalareaandensuretheirattendance.

• Allchildrenandyoungpeopleagedupto18,shouldbeassessedinallcasesasamatterofcourse beforebeinggivenanASBO.

• ASBOsforolderchildrenunder18shouldbescaledbackfromthecurrent2-to10-yearlimitto 6-24months.

10.Outreachschools HugevariationexistsinprovisionforpupilsexcludedfrommainstreamschoolsinEnglandandWales, withamarked‘insider-outsider’culture.Ensuringthatthereisreal,engagingprovisionforthese groupsshouldbeanessentialcomponentofanimprovedpreventionstrategy.Inafuturepublication, ipprwillrecommendtheintroductionofCanadian-style‘outreachschools’(SodhaandMargo2008, forthcoming).InAlbertaProvince,suchschools(whichhavethesamestatusandfollowthesame curriculumasstateschools,butwithamoreflexibletimetable)operatefromdisusedbuildingsand shopfrontsinthelocalarea. IntheUK,subsidisedbylocalauthorities,outreachschoolswouldofferlearningopportunitiesthat werelessstructuredthanthoseinmainstreamschools,combinedwithon-sitetherapistsandsocial workers,toyoungpeoplewhohavebeenexcludedfrommainstreamprovision.Theseschoolsshould offeramixtureofguidedindependentlearningandclass-basedlearning,andshouldbestaffedby fullyqualifiedteacherswithtrainingandexperienceinworkingwithyoungpeoplewithchallenging behaviours.Theyshouldofferahigherlevelofpastoralsupportthantraditionalschools.

Decriminalisingchildren Alongsidethis,wemustcontinuetochallengeandquestionthelanguageusedinmediaandbypublic figures(includingpoliticians)todescribeyoungpeople,andtorefutetheclaimthatyoungpeopleare somehowdistinctfrommainstreamsociety.Recognisingtheresponsibilityofadultstotheyounger generationmaynotbeachallengethatpolicy–beyondinvolvingparentsintreatmentand punishmentofchildoffenders–cansolvealone.Rather,culturalchangewillbecrucialtoo.

11

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Introduction InLondonin2007,26teenagerswerekilledinstabbingsandshootings.Inthefirstmonthof2008, newspapersandbroadcastershadalreadyreportedtwofatalstabbingsandseveralotherknifeattacks onteenagers,committedbyteenagers,inEngland(BBC2008).Whatisgoingon? In2005,aquarteroftheyouthpopulation–2.8millionyoungpeople–reportedcommittingan offence(HomeOffice2006).Thevastmajorityweremaleandfrequentoffenders–youngmenfor whomthiswasnotafirstoffenceandwillnotbetheirlast.Halfofthe2.8millionreported committingaseriouscrime.Manywillhavedisplayedcharacteristicsatage10thatcouldhave enabledparents,teachers,socialworkers,psychologistsorcareworkerstoidentifythemaspotential offenders.Manycouldhavebeendivertedfromcrimeviaavarietyofinterventionsandprogrammes thatarefarmorecosteffectivethanajailtermorcriminalrecord.Sofar,however,thishashappened infewcases.

Theproblem TheUKsuffersfromtworelatedproblemsthatdefinetheterrainwithinwhichyouthcrimeisdebated. First,itisclaimedthatwesufferfromhigherandmoresustainedlevelsofyouthcrimeandanti-social behaviourthanculturallysimilarcountries.Second,thepublicintheUKismorefearfulandconcerned aboutyouthmisbehaviourthanmembersofthepublicelsewhere. Publicconcernabouthowyoungpeoplebehaveinvisiblepublicarenas,andthesignalsthatthis sendsaboutthewidermoralstateofthecommunity,featurestronglyinsurveydataonanti-social behaviour.Thisconcernisalsoreflectedinresearchonneighbourhoodincivilities(low-levelanti-social behaviour)andinpolicereassuranceprogrammesintheUK(seeMargoetal 2006,Wood2004, Bottoms2006,Tuffinetal 2006).Largenumbersofpeopletakeoffence,andsometimesexperience fear,atthesightofyoungpeople‘hangingaround’.Itsignalstothemalackofsocialorder,orthe threatofdisorder–evenifinfacttheirpersonalriskofharmisslightornon-existent(Innes2004). Thisperceptionofanassociationbetweenyoungpeopleandcrimeanddisorderhasbeengrowing sincetheearly1990s(Margoetal 2006). Thisnotionofyoungpeoplebeingsomehowdistinctfromtherestofsocietyhasaffectedthedebate aboutyouthcrimeinseveralways.ItmakesBritishadultsmorelikelytoholdyoungpeople responsibleformisbehaviourandlesslikelytoholdotheradultsorparentstoaccountthanthose abroad.Itmakestheadultpublicmorehostileandafraidofyoungpeople.Finally,itleadspoliticians andpublictoconsiderpunishmentandthelegalsystemasamorevitalcomponentofastrategyto enforceadultnormsonyoungpeoplethanthoseinsomeothercountrieswhoseethecriminaljustice systemasalastresortwhendealingwithyoungpeople.Asaresult,weinvestmoreintacklingand punishingoffendingthanwedoinstrategiestosupporttheearlysocialisingstructuresoffamily, school,community. Inreality,youngpeoplearenotdistinct,noraretheyahomogeneousgroup.Theyarepartofa societyinwhichitistheresponsibilityofadultstoset–bothformallyandinformally–normsof behaviour.Itisalsotheresponsibilityofadultstomaintainthosenorms–boththroughteaching youngpeoplecontrolandcaution,andbydiscipliningwithmeasuredauthoritywhentheytransgress boundaries.Theevidenceonthecentralityofadult-childinteractiontothedevelopmentofmorality andemotionalandsocialwell-beingisclear,bothfromdetailedanalysisandfrompsychological research. Thisisnottosaythatyoungpeoplearemerelytheproductsofadultsociety–theyconstantlymake andremaketheirliveswithinsocialstructures,andshouldlearntotakeresponsibilityfortheir behaviour.Butitisnocoincidencethatyouthcrimeratesriseandfallinsimilarpatternstoadultcrime –apatternmirroredinalmostallEuropeancountriessurveyedin2006(Stevensetal 2006).Northat, asweshowlaterinTable4.2,thebestpredictorofyouthoffendingisahavingaparentorguardian

12

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

whooffends,apoorrelationshipwithparents,orspendinglittlequalitytimewithparents.And unsurprisingly,whenadultsarelessactivelyengagedwithchildreninthelocalcommunity(when levelsoflocalcollectiveefficacyarelow)thebehaviourofyoungpeopletendstowardstheanti-social anddisruptive–asitdoesinschoolswhererespectforteachersisloworwhenteachersinterveneless ofteninplaygroundbullying(SodhaandMargo2008,forthcoming). Somewherealongthewaythebeliefthatitisthemoralresponsibilityofadultstosocialisetheyoung hasbeenlost.Althoughtheroleofparentsisstillemphasised,adultsintheUKemergeasmoreafraid ofyoungpeople,lesswillingtointerveneintheprecursorsofyouthcrime,andlesswillingorableto spendtimewithyoungpeople.(Ouryoungpeoplespendlesstimewiththeirparentsthanthose elsewhereinEurope,trustfeweradultsinthelocalcommunityandhavelesstrustinfiguresofadult authoritysuchasteachersandthepolice.)Inturn,theUKpublichasfavouredmorepunitive responsestoyouthcrimethandoSwedish,FinnishorGermancitizens(seeSection3)andisless forgivingofyouthmisbehaviour.

Changingourapproach However,thereisrecentresearch(seeSection1)thatsuggeststhatpublicattitudesarefarmore complexthanhavepreviouslybeenthought,andthattheUKpublicdoessupportamorewelfareorientatedapproachtoyouthcrimethanhasbeenassumedinthepast. Inthisreport,itisarguedthatalthoughtherehasbeenexcellentprogressinmanyareasofyouth policy(particularlyinlightoftheDepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies’recentChildren’s Plan[DCSF2007]),therehavebeenmistakesbothinthepreviouslegislativeagendaonyouth offendingandinthediscourseof,andresponseto,youngpeopleandsocialchange.Thesolutionto youthoffendingwillbebothholistic–respondingproperlytotheemergingneedsofallyoung people,particularlyemergingproblemsthathaveresultedfromsocialchangetofamiliesand communities–andtargetedatthemost-at-risk.Butitwillbebothlesspunitiveandmore interventionistthanpreviousstrategies. Previousworktakesapublichealthapproachtothepreventionofyouthcrime(Stevensetal2006). Thisinvolvesworkatthreelevels:

• Primaryprevention –thisentails‘universal’approachesthataimtopreventthedevelopmentof criminalbehaviour.

•Atprimarylevel,universalstrategiesmustimprovethecapacityoffamilies,localcommunity, schools,earlyyearseducationandyouthactivitiestosocialise–embed–normsofbehaviour andrespectforcommunities(thisiswherecrimepreventionbeginsandismosteffective).This isparticularlyimportantinlightofsocialchangeaffectingtheseinstitutionsandthefindings thatadultsintheUKarelesslikelytointerveneintheprecursorsofoffendingthaninother countries.

• Secondaryprevention –whichincludesapproachesdirectedatindividualswhoareperceived asbeingatriskofoffending.

•Atsecondarylevel,targetedstrategiesmustimprovethecapacityofsocialservices,health servicesandspecialistprogrammestobothreachandimprovethebehaviourofthemost-atriskgroups,suchasthosecommittinganti-socialbehaviour,showingemotionalproblemsor havingproblemsatschool.

• Tertiaryprevention –thoseapproachesthatfocusonprioroffenders. •Tertiary-levelreformsmustimprovethecapacityofcriminaljusticesystemtobothpunishand rehabilitateoffenders. Whilepreviousprogrammesandpolicieshaveadoptedaprogressivenarrativeonyouthcrime–for example,theChildren’sPlan(DCSF2007),theRespectActionPlan(HomeOffice2006b),theEvery ChildMattersframework(2003)andtheTransitions(ODPM2005)andYouthMatters(DfES2005) approaches,thesehavenotsuccessfullychangedpublicopinionortheexperienceofthose committinganti-socialbehaviour.Toooften,infrastructurethathasbeendevelopedwithgood

13

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

intentionshasbeentwistedinimplementation.Anti-SocialBehaviourOrders(ASBOs)areagood exampleofapolicythatwasintroducedwithapositiveaimofreferringyoungpeopleatriskto appropriatesupportbeforetheyfallintocrime.However,inpracticetheyhavebeenmoreoftenused asapunishment,orasawayofspeedingupentrytothecriminaljusticesystem(seeSection7). Similarly,therhetoricoftheGovernment’sRespectdriveto‘tacklebadbehaviourandrespectgood’ (HomeOffice2006b)wastranslatedpoorlyintheprocessofdisseminationviamediaanddiscussion– fromanoriginalnarrativeofadultresponsibilitytoyoungpeople,tooneofblamingandexcluding youngpeoplefortheirbehaviour.Thisissueofwhatlanguagetousewhentalkingaboutyouthcrime, andhowtotacklepublicfear,needsrevisiting. Inaddition,attheprimarylevelofprevention,problemsexistatboththefamilyandcommunitylevel –partlybecausesocialchangehasunderminedthequalityandamountoftimespentbetweenadults (andparents)andyoungpeople,andbecauseengagementincommunitiesisonthewholenotvery constructive.Meanwhile,schoolsareunabletoadequatelysocialisethemost-at-riskbecausechildren tendonlytocomeintocontactwithwelfaresupportwhenalreadydisplayingseriousriskfactors,such astruancy.Themost-at-riskchildren(excludedpupils)areinadequatelysupported,eventhoughthey arethechildrenmostlikelytocommitcrime,breachanorderorendupincourt(SodhaandMargo 2008,forthcoming). Oursecondary-levelprogrammesdonotseemtoreachthemost-at-riskoftenenough,andarenot alwaysbasedontherealevidenceofwhatworksindivertingat-riskyoungpeoplefromcrime.Thereis notenoughjoined-upserviceprovision.Thisreportreflectson,butdoesnotconsiderindetail,the tertiarylevel,sincethiswillbeexaminedindetailinthesecondreportinthisseries(FarringtonDouglas2008,forthcoming). Ultimately,though,therearelimitstowhatpolicyalonecanachieve:thereisarelationshipbetween legislationandculture,butitisacomplicatedone.Wecannotexpecttheretobepolicyleversatevery levelcapableofchangingthewayadultsbehavetowardschildrenandviceversa.Thebestexampleof thisisintheareaofenabling‘collectiveefficacy’–thepropensityofadultstoactivelymonitorand engageinyouthbehaviour.Thisemergesasoneofthemostimportantprotectivefactorsin preventingyouthoffendinginverydisadvantagedareas.Yetenablingcollectiveefficacyisnota straightforwardjobforpolicy.Rather,weshouldacceptthelimitsoflegislationandfocusontheways inwhichpolicyandpracticecanprovideasupportiveinfrastructure.

Structureofthereport ThisreportfirstconsidersthestyleofcrimepreventionpursuedintheUK,andtrendsinyouthcrime, settingtheseinaninternationalcontext.Itthenexaminesthechangingsocialcontextwithinwhich youthcrimeoccurs,beforelookingindetailatwhatfactorsarecorrelatedtoyouthcrime,identifying thekeyriskfactors.Finally,itexaminestheevidenceofwhatworksinpreventingyouthcrime,and setsoutpolicyrecommendationsbasedonthisanalysis.

Noteaboutthedata ThisreportincorporatesoriginaldataanalysisusingtheBritishCrimeSurvey(since2001carriedout bytheHomeOffice)1,the1970BritishCohortStudy(BCS70)(acontinuing,multi-disciplinary longitudinalstudy,carriedoutbyseveraldifferentbodiesoveritslifetime,ofallthoselivingin England,ScotlandandWaleswhowereborninoneparticularweekinApril1970;seeAppendixfor moreinformation)2 theBritishSocialAttitudesSurvey(carriedoutannuallybytheNationalCentrefor SocialResearch)3 andtheFamilyExpenditureSurvey(carriedoutonanongoingbasisbytheOffice forNationalStatistics)4.AllthesedatasetswerekindlysuppliedbytheUKDataArchive,andare CrownCopyright.

1.www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html 2.www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Source.asp?vlnk=1303&More=Y 3.www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Source.asp?vlnk=619&More=Y 4.www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Source.asp?vlnk=1385&More=Y

14

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

1.Currentstrategiesforcrimeprevention IthasbecomeverycommonforcommentatorsandanalyststoportraytheUKyouthjusticesystemas beingparticularlypunitivecomparedwiththoseofothercountries. TheHomeOffice’sOffendingCrimeandJusticeSurvey detailsyoungpeople’scontactwiththe criminaljusticesystem,ratesofself-reportedoffendingandanti-socialbehaviour.Themostrecent figures(HomeOffice2006)showthat10percentofself-reportedyoungoffendershadbeen cautionedorgivenafinalwarningbypoliceinthepreviousyear.Fourpercenthadbeenarrested,2 percentweretakentocourt,1percentweregivenacommunitysentenceand1percentwerefined orgivenacustodialsentence. Theproportionofoffencesthatresultinacriminaljusticesanctionislow,afactthatiswell documented.Buttherearemanyreasonsforwhyoffendersarenotreported,detectedordealtwith viathecriminaljusticesystem(seeHomeOffice2005)–themostobviousbeingthatthebehaviour wasdealtwithatschoolorhome.Thisisnotsounusual:incountriessuchasSwedenandFinland, veryfewoffencesresultinsanctionandaremoreoftendealtwithbysocialservicesortheschool (Stevensetal 2006). ArangeofevidencesuggeststhattheUKincarceratesmoreyoungpeoplethandomostother Europeancountries(InternationalCentreforPrisonStudies2006,2007;Farrington-Douglas2008, forthcoming).Whyisthisso?Itisdueinparttothedifferentdefinitionsofageofcriminal responsibilityindifferentcountries.InEnglandandWalestheageofcriminalresponsibilityisjust10, whileinItaly,GermanyandSpainitis14,inDenmark,Finland,NorwayandSweden15,inPortugal 16andBelgiumandLuxembourg18.ThusintheUKahigherproportionoftheyouthpopulationis beingheldcriminallyresponsiblethanelsewhere. Inthepastyear,analystsandpractitionersfrommanyquartershavebeguntocriticisetheyoungage atwhichweholdindividualscriminallyresponsiblefortheirbehaviour(forexample,seethejointletter byJakobietal toTheTimes,9October2007)andcalledfordifferentresponsestoanti-social behaviour,theprecursortoyouthoffending.Ourhigherincarcerationratecanalsobetracedtoa morepunitive,lessholisticapproachtoyouthoffendingthaninsomeothercountries.

Anglo-saxonversusotherEuropeanapproaches JosineJunger-Tas(2006)hasreviewedthedifferencesbetweenjuvenilejusticesystemsinEurope,and identifiedthreedistinct‘clusters’.Thefirstisthe‘anglo-saxonorientation’.ThisincludestheUSA, Canada,Ireland,Englandand,tosomeextent,theNetherlands.Itfocusesonmakingyoungpeople (andtheirparents)responsiblefortheiracts,onusingpunishmenttodetercrime,andonbalancing theattentionpaidtotheoffender,thevictimandthecommunity. Thesecondclusterisformedinthe‘continentaltradition’.Thisfocuseslessonthecriminalisationof youngpeopleandmoreontheirprotectionandwelfare.IncountriessuchasFranceandGermany,the ageofcriminalresponsibilitytendstobehigherthaninanglo-saxoncountriesandeducationrather thanpunishmentisseenasthebestresponsetojuvenileoffenders.Therehavebeenpressuresto becomemorepunitivetowardsyoungpeopleinbothcountries,butdiversionofyoungoffendersfrom thecourtsisstillacommonpracticeinGermany,andFrenchinstitutionalpracticehasretainedafocus oneducationandwelfareindefianceofrecentlegalchanges(DouilletandDeMaillard2007). ThethirdclusterismadeupoftheNordiccountriesandScotland.Thesecountrieshavetraditionally dealtwithyoungoffendersthroughwelfareboards.Theseboardstendtousetreatmentand educationastheimmediateresponse,butarepreparedtohandoutpunishmentsiftheyfitthecrime, inlinewiththeir‘justdeserts’approach. Inallthesecountries,therehavebeensignificantpressurestoreducetheemphasisonwelfareandto dealwithyoungoffendersmoreharshly.AcloserlookatEngland,Wales,ScotlandandSwedencan demonstratecontrastingresponsestothesepressures.

15

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

EnglandandWales5 ManyanalystshavearguedthattheEnglishandWelshjusticesystemhasshiftedfromaprime concernfortreatmenttooneofpunishmentofyoungoffendersandanti-socialyouth(Pitts2005,Gill 2007).Thiscanbeseenintherisesinimprisonmentofyoungpeopleinaeraofreducingcrime, despitetheeffortsoftheYouthJusticeBoardtoreserveimprisonmentforonlythemostserious youngoffenders.However,since2007therehavebeenindicationsthatthisshiftmaybereversing, witharenewedemphasisonsocialpolicyresponsestoyouthcrimesignifiedbythemovingofthe RespectUnittotherecentlycreatedDepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamiliesandthe progressiveapproachadoptedinthatdepartment’sChildren’sPlan. TheEnglishandWelshapproachhasbeencharacterisedasa‘twin-track’approach(Stevensetal 2006),whichaimstoidentifythoseatriskofcrimeandinterveneearly,andtoprovideintensive interventionforpersistentyoungoffenders.Thisisconsideredtobecost-effectiveaspersistentyoung offenderscommitadisproportionateamountofyouthcrime(ibid).Theapproachisbuilton progressiveprinciples:thatchildoffendersoperatenotautonomously,butwithinaparticularsocial andfamilycontextwhichmaymakeitmorelikelythattheywillcommitacrime.However,itisnot clearthatthisapproachfeedsthroughinpractice.Forinstance,thelowageofcriminalresponsibility meansthat10-year-oldoffendersareconsideredpersonallyresponsiblefortheircrimes.Childrenthis youngwouldnotbetreatedascriminalsinanyotherEuropeancountry. ThelastdecadehasseenakeenfocusoncrimereductioninEnglandandWales,ledbythe establishmentoftheHomeOfficeCrimeReductionProgrammeandlegislativechangeswhichhave affectedthewayinwhichanti-socialbehaviouristackled.Yet,mostoftheseinitiativeshavebeen aimedatthosealreadyatriskofoffendingorwhohavealreadyoffended(forexample,anti-social behaviourlegislation,whichcanplacecurfewsandbansonyoungpeoplewhohavealready committedanti-socialbehaviour).Othershavebeenbasedonthetertiarylevel(probationorprisonorientated).Incontrast,therehasbeenalackofemphasisonearlyintervention.Muchprevention workistargetedatthosealreadyatriskofoffending,forexampleSureStartoffersparenting programmes,leisureactivitiesandmentoringschemesbutthisisaimedatveryyoungchildrenand familiesratherthanthe5-12agegroup,theagesatwhichpreventionstrategiesarethoughttobe mosteffective(Farringtonetal 2007).ThisisquitedifferenttocountriessuchasFinland,Swedenand Canada,whereprimaryschoolagechildrenareservedbyadditionaluniversalleisure,therapeuticand familyinterventionsandactivities. Therehavebeenpreventioninitiatives.ThesecomeundertheremitoftheYouthJusticeBoard.They includeYouthinclusionandSupportPanels(YISPS)forchildrenaged8–13.Targetedchildrenwhoare consideredatriskofoffendingreceiveintensivesupportandtherapy,orleisureandsportingactivities. YouthOffendingTeamshavealsobeenintroducedtoworkintensivelywithyoungoffenders,inorder toensuretheirneedsaremetandthattheyfulfiltheobligationsoftheirreferralorder,whilealso accessinganytherapyoractivityprogrammethathasbeendeemedappropriate.Theseeffortsmay bearsomefruitwiththerelativelysmallnumbersofyoungpeoplewhogothroughthem,buttheydo nothingtoaddressthebroaderinfluencesonoffending. Interventioninthelivesofchildrenhasalsocomeintheformofparentingorders,whichhavebeen describedastheGovernment’s‘naughtystep’forparentswhoarenotdoingenoughtopreventtheir children’soffending(GelsthorpeandBurney2007).Whileearlyinterventioncanhelpfamiliestolead lessproblematiclives,andmanyparentsseeksupportfortheirparenting,thereisalackofevidence thattheshortcoursesthatparentingordersinvolvecanhavelong-termbenefitsforfamilies.Thereis adangerthattheseordersmaybetargetedonlyatpoor,stressedmothers,potentiallyaddingtothe stressthathamperstheirparentingandignoringthestructuralinequalitiesthatcontributeto depression,lowlevelsofparentalsupervisionandotherindicatorsofinadequateparenting. 5.TheofficialpolicyoftheWelshAssemblyonyoungpeopleisdifferenttotheEnglishequivalentin thatitemphasisestherightslistedinUnitedNationsConventionoftheRightsoftheChild.Thepolicy explicitlyincludesyoungoffendersashavingtheserights,buttherearetensionsbetweenthisrightsbasedapproachandthecentralisedmanagerialismoftheYouthJusticeBoard,whichcoversbothEngland andWales(Haines2007).

16

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Scotland Servicesthatseektopreventyoungpeoplefrombecominginvolvedinoffendingbehaviourplaya criticalrolewithinScotland’syouthjusticeprovision,whichiscoordinatedbytheJusticeDepartment. ScotlandshareswithEnglandandWalesatwin-trackapproachofearlyidentificationofpotential offendersandintensiveinterventionwithoffenders,buttheScottishExecutivehasinpracticegiven moreattentiontoprimary-levelinterventionsthanhaveEnglandandWales. Tothisend,theScottishExecutivehasinvestedmorethan£33millionsince2002/03tosupportthe expansionofintensivecommunity-basedinitiativesthatdealwithoffendingbehaviourandanti-social attitudesamongyoungpeople(YouthJustice2008).Theserangefrompreventionanddiversionary projectsforthoseontheperipheryofoffendingthroughtointensivesupportandsupervisionforthe mostdangerousanddisruptiveyoungpeople.Itiscurrentlypilotingarangeofinterventions, includingaYouthCourtfeasibilitystudy,asurveyoffast-trackapproachestodealingwithpersistent criminals,andareviewoftheeffectivenessofAnti-SocialBehaviour,ParentingandCommunity ServiceOrders(YouthJusticeScotland2008). Alsoindicativeofthemorewelfare-orientatedapproachinScotlandistheChildren’sHearingssystem. ThisstructureisuniquetoScotland,andprovidesasystemofcareandjusticeforvulnerableand troubledchildrenandyoungpeople.ItwasoneoftheradicalchangesinitiatedbytheSocialWork (Scotland)Act1968,nowincorporatedintheChildren(Scotland)Act1995.In1971,hearingstook overfromthecourtsmostoftheresponsibilityfordealingwithchildrenandyoungpeopleunder16 whoareinneedofcareorprotectionorwhocommitoffences(YouthJusticeScotland2008). ThewelfareofthechildistheparamountconcernoftheChildren’sHearingssystem.Decisionsby panelmembersatahearingarebasedprimarilyontheneedsofthechild.Panelmembersaretrained volunteerswhoconsiderwhetherthechildrenwhoarereferredareinneedofcompulsorysupervision. Thesystemisnotaboutpunishment,butabout‘socialeducation’(YouthJusticeScotland2008). Aroundtwo-thirdsofthosechildrenwhoarereferredtoahearingarereferredongroundsofcareand protection,andhavebeenoffendedagainst,ratherthanoffendingthemselves(ibid). Inaddition,diversionaryservicesaredeliveredacrossScotlandtothoseyoungpeopleontheperiphery ofoffendingbehaviour.Theseservicesaredesignedtopreventthisparticulargroupofyoungpeople fromdevelopingintomorepersistentand/orseriousoffendersbyfocusingonthefactorsthathave ledtotheiroffending.Byidentifyingandaddressingtheyoungperson’sspecificneeds,theseservices canworkwithyoungpeopletochangetheirattitudesandbehaviour.Again,thesearedeliveredeither directlybylocalauthoritiesorotherpartnerorganisations,suchasthoseinthevoluntarysector(ibid). Sweden IncontrastwiththeEnglish/Welshapproach,Swedenfocusesresourcesattheprimarylevel,aimingto identifyearlyonthoseatriskofcrimeandtointervenetopreventriskfactorsfromemerging.The approachiscoordinatedbytheSwedishNationalInstituteofPublicHealth.Becauseyoungpeopleare notconsideredcriminallyresponsibleuntiltheageof15,preventionapproachesfocusmainlyon families. Currently,aseriesofquasi-experimentaltrialstudiesregardingthepreventionofyouthcrime,onthe primaryandsecondarylevel,arebeingundertaken.Averyinterestingexampleistheevaluationof multi-systemictherapy(MST),comparingitwiththeusualSwedishapproach.MSThasbeenseenas veryeffectiveinUSevaluationsthathavecomparedittotherelativelypunitiveAmericansystemof ‘out-of-homeplacement’ofyoungoffenders.YoungpeoplewhowentthroughMSTinSweden showedsimilarreductionsinproblembehaviourstotheirAmericancounterparts,butthese improvementswerenotsignificantlylargerthanthosewhoreceivedtheusual,relatively comprehensivepackageofeducationandsocialsupportthatisprovidedforallyoungoffendersin Sweden(Olssonetal 2008).Functionalfamilytherapy(FFT)hasalsobeenimplementedand evaluatedbyHansson(2001)inarandomisedcontroltrial,withpositiveresultssofar.Otherongoing workincludesarandomisedstudyofmultidimensionaltreatmentfostercare(MTFC).Wereturntothe evidenceontheefficacyoftheseprogrammesinSection7.

17

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

TheSwedishNationalInstituteofPublicHealthhasalsoinitiatedapre-school,family-based interactivepreventionprogrammecalledtheCommunityParentEducationProgram(‘COPE’),based onCunningham’s(1998)work.ThisdiffersfromEnglishparentingordersinthatitisavailabletoall parents(soavoidinglabellingandstigmatisingofthosewhoarestruggling).Itisbasedinexisting communitysettings.Childcareisprovidedtoenableallparentstoattend,andtheteachingstyleis basedongroupdiscussion.Earlyevaluationshowedveryhighratesofparentsatisfactionandsome evidenceofreducedproblembehaviourbytheirchildren(Hellström2005). OtherScandinaviancountriesusesimilarlysupportiveapproaches,includingFinland,whereprimary preventionincludesexcellentdaycareandchildcareinwhichbehaviouralandsocialskillsarethe focusoflearning. Insummary EnglandandWalesconcentratelesseffortonprimarypreventionthancountriessuchasScotland, SwedenandFinland,andappeartotakeamorepunitivelinethanthesecountries.Butwhyisthis? EarlierinthisreportmentionwasmadeoftheuniquelyhighlevelsofpublicfearofcrimeintheUK. Researchrevealsthatpeopleattachahighimportancetothebehaviourofyouthinpublicspaces,and thatthismaydriveamorepunitiveapproachtoyouthcrime–or,attheveryleast,couldreduce politicalspaceforamorewelfare-orientatedapproach.Wegoontoexaminethisbelow.

ThepeculiarcaseoftheUK:understandingpublicattitudes FearofyoungpeopleandconcernsabouttheirbehaviourhavebeengrowingintheUKsincethe 1990s.TheanalysisbyipproftheBritishCrimeSurveyrevealsthatin2004/05morethan1.5million Britonshadthoughtaboutmovingawayfromtheirlocalareaduetoyoungpeoplehangingaround, and1.7millionavoidedgoingoutafterdarkasadirectresult.ItisimportanttonotethatintheUK ‘youngpeoplehangingaround’isconsideredaformofanti-socialbehaviour.Thisviewisunique.Itis notmatchedbysimilarviewsinSweden,FinlandorotherEuropeancountries,sointhesecountriesa punitivelegislativeagendaonanti-socialbehaviourhasnotbeendeveloped. AnalysisofUKopiniondatagivesussomesenseofwhatisdrivingfearofcrimeinthiscountry.It reveals,asexpected,thatfearofcrimeisinlargepartdrivenbyconcernsaboutthepresenceofyoung peopleinpublicspaces.Peopletendtoseepersistentgraffitioryoungpeoplehangingaroundina particularplaceasbeingactuallymorethreateningtolocalsafetythansomemoreseriouscrimes,such asresidentialburglary(Dixonetal 2006).Thebehaviourofadolescentsappearstosendsignalstothe publicaboutthemoralstateofsociety,exacerbatingconcernsaboutcrimeanddisorderingeneral (Pearce2007,Margoetal 2006).Again,thisisaparticularlyBritishproblem.Theanalysisbyippr (ibid)ofpresscoverageofyouthbehaviourintheUKin2006revealedthatcoveragetobehighly negativeinnature–supportingthefindingsofpreviousworkinthisarea. Suchnegativeperceptionsofyoungpeopleandconcernsaboutyouthanti-socialbehaviourhave,of course,alsoimpactedonpublicattitudestowardsyoungpeopleingeneral.In2004,nearly80per centofBritons–and99percentofthoseagedover55–thoughtthat‘youngpeopletodayhavetoo muchfreedomandnotenoughdiscipline’(PageandWallace2004,Pearce2007).Lookingoverseas showsthistobeaparticularlyBritishconcern:asshownearlier,Britonsarefarmorelikelythanother Europeanstosaythatyoungpeoplearepredominantlyresponsibleforanti-socialbehaviour,andthey arealsomorelikelytocite‘lackofdiscipline’astherootcause. PollsandsurveysalsorecordstrongandlargelyenduringsupportintheUKforthedeathpenalty, longerprisonsentencesandotherauthoritarianresponsestocrime(Pearce2007).Whilemoreliberal attitudesprevailamongthebettereducatedandthebetteroff,authoritarianviewstowardscrimeare widespreadamongthepublic.Britaindoesnotappeartobewitnessingatrendtowardsmore progressiveviewsoncrimeandpunishmentinthewaythatithasonissuesofsexuality,personal moralityortheenvironment.Indeed,socialliberalismmayactuallyencouragepunitiveattitudesto crime,aspeopleinsistthattheremainingsocialrulesestablishingclearlimitstobehaviourshouldbe strictlyenforced(TylerandBoeckmann1997). Yetpublicattitudesarenotstraightforwardlyauthoritarian:thefindingsofsocialpsychologistsand

18

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

criminologiststellamorecomplexstory.Althoughstudiesrepeatedlyfindthatthedesirefor retributionispowerfulanduniversal–totheextentthatitmaybeconsideredabasichumaninstinct –itisnotauniformlyexpressedemotion(Pearce2007,TylerandBoeckmann1997).Itisheldmost stronglybythosesocialisedfromanearlyageintoauthoritariannorms,thoseonlowincomes(who tendtoexperiencehigherlevelsofcrimeandvictimisation),theelderly,andthosewhoarepoorly educated.Anditvariesaccordingtohowpeopleevaluatethemotivesandmoralsofoffenders,and thetypesofcrimetheycommit.Vengefulnessisfeltmostforcefullyforcrimesthatshatterthe symbolicmoralorderofagroup–forexample,childabuse–butfarlesssoforcrimesofamaterial nature,suchasburglary.Theintentionsofthecriminalalsomatter,asdoeshisorherlevelofremorse. Furthermore,whenpeoplearepresentedwithinformationoncriminalsandtheircrimesby professionalsinpublicauthority,theirattitudeisconsiderablymoreliberalthanwhentheyreceiveit fromthemedia.Deliberationonpolicyalternativesandinvolvementincommunitycourtandcaseconferencingprocessesalsopredictmoreliberalandlesspunitiveattitudes(HoughandPark2002, Rogers2005). SurveysandresearchstudiesconductedfortheEsméeFairbairnRethinkingCrimeandPunishment (RCP)project(Allen2004)foundmuchmorecomplexityandpotentialmalleabilityinpublicattitudes tocrimethanopinionpollsregister.Twofindingswereofparticularinterest.First,attitudestowards sentencingdiscriminatedsignificantlyinrespectofdrugusers.Almosteverybody,includingtabloid readers,takestheviewthatdrugaddictsshouldbetreated,ratherthanpunished.Second,therewas considerablepublicsupportforcrimepreventionstrategiesfocusedonimprovingparentingand workingintensivelywithchildrenatrisk.Incontrast,theyfoundthatthepublicarescepticalofthe rehabilitativeefficacy,ifnotthelegitimacyordesirability,ofprisonsentences. Otherevidencesupportstheargumentthatpublicperceptionsofcrimeareheavilydeterminedbythe behaviourofyoungpeopleinpublicspaces,andthemessagesthatthisbehavioursendsabout embeddingvalues(‘valuesocialisation’)withinfamiliesandthewidercommunity.TomTylerand RobertBoeckmann’sstudyofattitudestoCalifornia’s‘threestrikes’policy(TylerandBoeckmann 1997)foundthatfearofcrimeasasocialproblempredictedsupportforthepolicyandforageneral punitiveness,butthatastrongerpredictorwasdepthofconcernoverthelackofmoralsocialisationof teenagersinthefamily,andthegrowthofgangculture. Inthefinaltwosectionsofthisreport(sections6and7)weshallrevisittheimplicationsofthis researchforpolicy–butpublicattitudestocrimeneedtobesetinacontext.So,insections2and3 weshallconsidertrendsinyouthbehaviour,attitudesandoffendingintheUK,inaninternational context,beforeexaminingriskfactorsforoffendingandthedevelopmentofmoralresponsibility.

19

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

2.Cooltobecriminal?Impactsofsocialchangeonattitudes, behaviourandperceptions Aswehaveseen,thereisapervadingbeliefthatBritishsocietyisinmoraldecline–thatsocialchange hasunderminedtheabilityofadultstoteachandcontroltheyoungergeneration,thatyouthculturehas changed,andthatasaresultyouthoffendingisontherise(whichitisn’t).ResearchbyUNICEF(2007) claimsthatBritishyouthhavefewerfriendsthantheircounterpartsintherestofthecountriesinthe OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD),andthattheyfight,smokeanddrink moreandhavepoorerrelationswiththeirparents.Earlierin2007theInstituteofPsychiatryfoundthat youthmentalandpsychologicalwell-beingwaspoorerthanforpreviousgenerations(Instituteof Psychiatry2007).Meanwhile,theYouthJusticeBoardrevealedthatbreachesofASBOsandreferral ordershadincreasedby88percentinthefouryearsto2006(YouthJusticeBoard2006). Manyopinionshavebeenofferedastowhyouryouthseemtobe‘indecline’.Toomuchexamstress (James2000),theinfluenceofthemediaandadvertisinginsettingnormsofbehaviour(Compass 2007),familychange,themigrationofdifferentculturalgroups,andevencomputergamesandthe hiphop/ghettomusicculture,haveallbeencitedasunderminingyouthbehaviourandthecapacityof responsibleadultstoinfluenceit(seeMargoetal 2006).Othershavearguedthatpersistent inequality,alongsiderisingaffluence,hascompoundedtheinjusticesexperiencedbythepoorest groupsandturnedthemagainstmainstreamsociety(MacDonaldandMarsh1995). Inthissection,weconsiderthesocialchangethathasaffectedyoungpeople–particularlyintermsof theirattitudestoauthority,theirbehaviour,andthewayinwhichtheyareperceivedbyadults.

Visibleyouth Wehavealreadyarguedthatyoungpeopleshouldnotbeviewedasdistinctfromtherestofsociety– theyareanintrinsicpartofoursocialstructures.Butwecantrackseveraleventsascompoundingthe senseoffearandanxietyspecificallyaboutyoungpeople. Interestingly,thegrowthinpublicfearofyoungpeopleandconcernabouttheirbehaviourhas coincidedwithaperiodinwhichcertaingroupsofyoungpeoplehavebecomemorevisibleonthe streets.Despitetheincreasingpopularityofindoorleisureactivities,suchascomputergamesand internetuse,thetendencytospendmoretimeathomehasnotbeenauniformculturalchangeacross youngergenerations. Sincethe1980stheleisureactivitiesofteenagershavebecomeincreasinglydiversified,withpoorer groupsspendinglesstimewithparentsduetoworkpressures,risingdivorceandsingleparenthood. Thecombinationoflesstimewithparentsplusfewaffordableoreasilyaccessiblealternativesofadultledactivitieshasresultedinsomeofthemost-at-riskgroupsofyoungpeoplebeing‘freer’tosocialise unsupervisedwithpeersinpublicareasthaninthepast.Figure2.1(nextpage)showsthatchildrenin England,WalesandScotlandspendmoretimewithpeersthanthoseelsewhere. AlsoofinterestinFigure2.1arethegenderdifferencesinsocialising.Boysaremuchmorelikelythan girlstospendtimewithpeersduringtheweek–anditis,ofcourse,boyswhoaremorelikelyto commitanoffence. Thereisalsoevidencethatyoungpeopleareincreasinglylikelytobehangingaroundinpublicareas thaninthepast.In1992,Britonswere1.75timesmorelikelytociteyoungpeoplehangingaroundas aproblemthantheyweretocomplainaboutnoisyneighbours.By2006theyweremorethanthree timesmorelikely(Walkeretal 2006).AnalysisbyipproftheBritishCrimeSurveyshowsthatin 2004/05morethan7millionpeopleinEnglandandWalessaidthatyoungpeoplehangingaroundin publicspaceswasaproblemmoreorlessallthetimeintheirarea.Morethan2millionsaidthishada significantimpactontheirqualityoflife. Researchinthisareaisseverelyhamperedbyalackofreliablelongitudinaldata.Butoneindicatorof rising‘peersocialisation’ofdisadvantagedyoungpeopleincontemporaryBritainistheestimated

20

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Figure2.1: Proportionof 15-year-olds spendingtime withfriendsfour ormoreevenings aweek,2001/02

Boys

59

60

60

54 51 50

47 44

Proportion (%)

41

Source:Currieet al (2004)

Girls

70

40

45

45

41

48 46 40

37 34

35 33

31 28

30 25 20 20

16

17

14

20

18 15 13

12

29 28 27 26

35 31

30

29

34

34

31

21

14

10 10

8

7 3

Ca na da W ale s En gl an d No rw ay Fi nl an d Sc ot lan d Uk ra in e

ae l Sp ain

US A

Isr

Ita ly Po lan d De nm ar k Ge rm an y Sw ed en Ne th er lan ds Ire lan d

Po rtu ga l Be lg iu m Hu ng ar y Fr an ce Sw itz er lan d Gr ee ce

0

6percentofyoungpeopleagedbetween10and19in2006whobelongedtoagang–risingto12 percentof14-to16-year-olds(Sharpetal 2006).Youngpeoplewhogetonbadlywiththeirparents, whospendlittleornotimewiththemorwholiveinareaswithhighlevelsoflocaldisorderaremuch morelikelytobegangmembers–oftencitingthefactthatthereis‘notverymuchornothingtodo’ intheirlocalareaasreasonsforjoiningagang(Margoetal 2006). Importantly,thesegangsareusuallycentredaroundaparticularlocationwhichthegroupcalled‘its own’,oftenanopenpublicspace:43percentofmemberssaidtheirgangwascentredonaparkor recreationgroundand39percentsaiditwascentredonastreetcornerorsquare.Just25percent claimedthattheirgangwasbasedaroundaparticularpropertyorhome(Sharpetal 2006).Dataon trendsingangmembershiparehardtocomeby,butthesefiguressuggestthatasignificant proportionofBritishyoutharespendingthemajorityoftheirtimeinunmediated,unstructured interactionwithpeers. Keytopublicperceptionsofthese‘visibleyouth’isthatatatimewhenat-riskyoungpeopleare spendingmoretimehangingaroundwithfriends,theirmoreadvantaged,bettersocialisedpeersare increasinglylikelytobeindoorsorparticipatinginadult-ledactivities.Thisisparticularlyevidentinthe amountofmoneynowbeingspentonleisureactivitiesforyoungpeople. AsTable2.1shows,thoseintherichestquintilespent£106aweekonyouthrecreationandculture activitiesin2004/5,comparedwith£19.40forthoseinthepoorestquintile.Thisfigureincluded £11.90onsports,subscriptionsandleisureclassfeesperweekin2004/05,comparedwith£0.70for thoseinthepoorestquintile. Table2.1:Weeklyexpenditureonleisureservicesandvariousothergoods,2004/05 Poorestincomequintile Richestincomequintile Transport £15.20 £120.90 (ofwhichpublictransport) £3.10 £17.60 Recreationandculture(total) £19.40 £106.00 (ofwhichsportsadmissions, £0.70 £11.90 subscriptionsandleisureclassfees) (ofwhichcinema,theatre,museumsetc) £0.50 £4.70 (ofwhichbooks,newspapersandmagazines) £2.60 £7.60 (ofwhichpackageholidays) £2.50 £24.40 Note:Figuresaverageofbottomtwoandtoptwodeciles. Source:AdaptedfromGibbinsandJulian2006

21

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Awealthofotherevidencesupportsthenotionthattherehasbeenalargedivergenceinleisure experiencebetweenwell-offandpoorchildren,whichbegantomakeitselffeltfromthe1980s (Margoetal 2006).Mediareportsofpressuredmiddle-classyoungpeoplewhospendtoomuchtime inextra-curricularactivitiescompoundthecase. Increasedvisibilityofthoseyoungpeoplewhoarelesssocialisedthroughadultinteraction,andare thereforelesslikelytoconformtoadultbehaviournorms,mayinpartexplainincreasingpublicfearof youngpeople.Thesechangeshavealsoledtoperceptionsofabreakdownin‘youthsocialisation’– particularlyforthemostdisadvantaged,resultingfromthechangingamountoftimespentwith adults.

Timespentwithadultsandparents Priorresearchhasshownthattrendsinwork,familylifeandincreasedchangestofamiliesmeanthat BritishchildrenspendlesstimewiththeirparentsthaninmostcomparableEuropeancountries (Bradshawetal 2006).RecentanalysisoftheOECD’sProgrammeforInternationalStudent Assessment(PISA)datademonstratesthisclearly:asFigure2.2shows,in2000just64percentof15year-oldsintheUKatewiththeirparentsaroundatableseveraltimesaweek–alowerproportion thananyothercountryinEuropeapartfromFinland.

89

90

Hong Kong

Portugal

87

France

Sweden

87

Russia

Denmark

UK

Spain

New Zealand

Japan

64

74

83

Argentina

63

US

59

62

72

Canada

69

70

71

Australia

80

82

82

85

81

83

80

Germany

90

Belgium

100

Proportion of young people (%)

93

76

60 50 40 30 20 10

Italy

Ireland

Hungary

Greece

0 Finland

Figure2.2: Youngpeople whoseparents eatthemainmeal withthemaround atableseveral timesaweek, 2000 Source:Authors’ analysisofPISA 2000data

Note:Dataisfor15-year-olds

Thislowlevelofparentalcontactisnotrestrictedtomealtimes,asFigure2.3belowshows.In2000 just62percentof15-year-oldssaidthattheirparentsspendtime‘justtalking’tothemseveraltimes aweek:farlessthaninItalyorHungary,wherenearly90percentofyoungpeoplespenttimewith theirparentsinthisway. Thisfindingresonatesstronglywiththeexperiencesofbothparents.RecentMORIpollshaveshown thatwhile15percentofparentssaytheirmainconcernis‘notspendingenoughtimewithchildren’, 24percentofchildrensaytheirparentsarenotalwaystherewhentheyneedthem,35percentsay theirparentsdonotmakethemfeellovedandcaredfor,and44percentsaytheyareunabletotalk totheirparentsaboutproblems(PageandWallace2004).Whenaskedin2002,49percentof parentsdidnotknoweitherexactlywheretheirchildrenwere,orwhomtheywerewithorwhat theyweredoingafterschool,attheweekendsorduringtheholidays(Nestlé2006).

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

100 89 90

86 78 69

69

Denmark

64

Portugal

63

France

New Zealand

62

Norway

Australia

61

UK

51

59

63

Ireland

51

58

Spain

51

Sweden

60

Japan

70

US

80

47

50 41 40 30 20 10

Hungary

Italy

Finland

Canada

0 Germany

Figure2.3: Proportionof youngpeople whoseparents spendtime‘just talking’tothem severaltimesa week,2000 Source:Authors’ analysisofPISA 2000data

Proportion (%)

22

Note:Dataisfor15-year-olds Itislikelythatfamilychange–moredivorceandsingleparenthood,aswellasmorewomeninthe labourmarket–willhavecontributedtothesetrends,assuggestedinpriorresearch(Margoetal 2006).Clearlychildrenfromsingle-parentfamiliesinwhichtheloneparentneedstoworkto supportthefamilywillfinditmoredifficulttospendtimewiththeirparentthanachildwithtwo parents,orwithparentswhoworkfewerhours. InFigures2.1,2.2and2.3,weseethatUKchildrenspendmoretimewithfriendsandlesstime withparentsthantheirpeerselsewhere.Althoughchildrenandyoungpeopleinsomeother countriesalsospendlittletimewithparents,theydonotspendalotofunstructuredtimewith peers.Forexample,althoughchildrenfromcountriessuchasNorwayandFinlandspendalotof timewithpeersafterschool,andlesstimeeatingamainmealwithparents,theyalsospendthe highestamountof‘qualitytime’withparents,talkingtothem,outofallthecountries.Anecdotal evidencealsoindicatesthatyoungpeopleinFinland,DenmarkandNorwayaremuchmorelikely toengageinsupervisedactivitiesafterschoolthanthoseintheUK(SodhaandMargo2008, forthcoming). ThereisalsoevidencethatfearofyoungpeopleintheUKhasmademembersofthepublic– adultsinthelocalcommunity–lesswillingtointerveneandmonitortheirbehaviourthaninthe past.Thismatters,becauseawideevidencebaseshowsthatlowcollectiveefficacy(unwillingness tointerveneintheprecursorsofyouthanti-socialbehaviour)isoneofthemostaccurate predictorsofhighlevelsofanti-socialbehaviourintheUK–or,rather,thatitisthemost important‘protective’factorthatcanpreventagainstoffendingemergingwhenotherriskfactors arepresent. ThemostdetailedresearchinthisareahasbeencarriedoutintheUnitedStates.InChicago neighbourhoods,mutualtrustandneighbourlyaltruismwerekeyfactorsinexplaininginterneighbourhooddifferencesincrimerates.Communitiescharacterisedbyanonymityandlimited acquaintance,unsupervisedteenagepeergroupsandlowlevelsofcivicparticipationfacean increasedriskofcrimeandviolence(Sampsonetal 1997,CoteandHealy2001).Figure2.4reveals thatintheUKadultsareoftenunwillingtointervenewhenyoungpeoplearebehavinginanoisy, rudeorthreateningmannerinthecommunity.

23

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Figure2.4:How likelywouldyou betointervene ifyousawtwo orthree teenagers…? Source:ADT Europe2006

100%

Definitely not ask them to stop

Probably ask them to stop

Probably not ask them to stop

Definitely ask them to stop

5 4

90% 80%

15

14

18

22 15

21 21

Proportion of people

70% 60% 24 27

50%

24

40% 68 30% 44

20%

36

36

10% 0% Abusing, harassing or insulting an elderly person in your street

Damaging property or cars in your street

Being loud, rowdy or noisy outside your home

Spray-painting graffiti on a building in your street

Base:representativesampleof1,001adults(aged18andover)acrossGreatBritain Onlyinthecaseofharassmentofanelderlypersonintheirstreetwasthereaclearmajorityof thosedefinitelywillingtointervene.Ifweputthesequestionsinaninternationalcontext,the figuresappearevenmoreworrying.In2006BritonswerelesslikelythanmostotherEuropean countriestointerveneinyouthviolence(ADTEurope2006).Forexample,65percentof Germans,52percentofSpanishand50percentofItalianswouldbewillingtointerveneifthey sawagroupof14-year-oldboysvandalisingabusshelter,comparedwithjust34percentof Britons. Itisworthexamininginmoredetailpeople’sreasonsfornotintervening.OfthoseBritonswho wereunwillingtogetinvolved,39percentclaimedtheyfearedbeingphysicallyattackedby youngpeople,14percentwerescaredoflaterreprisalsand12percentfearedbeingverbally abused(ADTEurope2006). Furtherresearchindicatedthatmoreheterogeneouscommunitiesexperiencelowerlevelsof collectiveefficacy.In2005,peoplefromblackandminorityethnicgroupsweremuchlesslikelyto saythatpeopleintheircommunitywouldinterveneifachildwasrudetoanadult,orifagroupof childrenwerespray-paintinggraffitithanthosefromawhitebackground(seeMargoetal 2006). Whymightthisbe? Increasedculturalheterogeneitymaymeanthatlocalculturalnormsarelessclearcut.Most communitiesarenolongerunifiedbythechurch,forexample.Differentfamilies,withvery differentexpectationsofchildbehaviour,mayliveclosetogether–makingitharderforlocal communitiestotackleanti-socialbehaviourinaunifiedway.Butitisalsowellknownthatthose livinginpoorerareastendtoexperiencehigherlevelsoffearandconcernabouttheirsafety (Dixonetal 2006).Thishighlightsjusthowimportantitistoengageallcommunitiesinlocal issuesinaholisticandintegratedway–particularlygiventhatyoungergenerationsintheUKare muchmorelikelytobefromaminorityethnicbackgroundthanoldercohorts.

24

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Youthattitudes Thereisanoverridingbeliefthatyoungpeopletodayarelessrespectfulofauthoritythanwasthe caseinthepast.Lastyear,theYouthJusticeBoardfoundthatthenumberofyoungpeopleflouting referralordershadincreasedby88percentoverthepastfouryears.Previousresearchhasalso suggestedthatASBOswerebecomingabadgeofhonourforyoungpeople:somethingtobeproudof ratherthananembarrassment(YouthJusticeBoard2006).However,thisisbynomeansthecasein allsimilarcountries. InFinland,youngpeoplehavebeenshowntobeveryeffectivelysocialisedintoadultnormsof behaviour,andingeneralexpressverynegativeviewsaboutindividualswhocommitcrimeandantisocialactivities.Inrecentsurveys,almostallchildrendescribedoffendersas‘losers’whorequirehelp togetovertheir‘problems’(SodhaandMargo2008,forthcoming).Surveysalsoindicatestrong supportforauthorityfiguressuchasteachers,thepoliceandlawenforcement(ibid).Sowhatis happeningintheUK? TheanalysisbyipproftheYoungPeople’sSocialAttitudesSurveys(whicharecarriedoutbythe NationalCentreforSocialResearchaspartoftheBritishSocialAttitudesSurvey)showsthatBritish youtharemorecynicalaboutthepoliceandfiguresofauthorityandlesslikelytotrustadultsinthe localcommunity(Margoetal 2006).Italsosuggestedthattheremaybedecliningrespectforadult normsofbehaviour:agreaterproportionofyoungpeoplenowsaythattheywouldkeepextrachange giventotheminerrorinbothlargerstoresandcornershops,andthisissupportedbyparents’views oftheirchildren’sbehaviour. Longitudinalevidencesuggeststhatparentshavebecomemorelikelytoreportproblemswiththeir teenagechildren–particularlyintermsoflyingandgeneraldisobedience(seeFigure3.4).Butitis alsoimportanttorememberthatchildrenarenotadults,andthatadultnormsarepreciselythat: normalbehaviourforadults.Acertainamountof‘problem’behaviourshouldbeexpectedfrom childrenandyoungpeople.ItisworthremindingourselvesoftheevidencecitedinSection1ofthe peculiarityoftheUKapproachtoyouthbehaviour,whichconsidersevenhangingaroundwithfriends tobeanoffence.Whileweshouldexpectyoungpeopletobehavewellinpublic,weshouldalso expectacertainamountofquestioningofauthority–somethingthatisanaturalpartofthe developmentalprocess,asSection5explains.

Theextensionofadolescence Whilethenotionofdecliningrespectforauthorityisdebated,thereissomeconsensusthatthetrend inmanydevelopedcountrieshasbeentowardsthe‘adultification’ofyouth(Margoetal 2006),and thatthismayexplainlessdeferencetoadultrules.Thereisnoquestionthatyoungpeopledo increasinglyexperienceandadoptadultconcernsandbehavioursatyoungerages.Amoreaccurate termforthisphenomenonmightbethe‘extensionofadolescence’backwardsintochildhood,asmany ofthebehavioursdeemedtoindicate‘adultification’aremorecloselyconnectedtoteenage/ adolescentbehaviour–forexample,increasedsexualactivity,drugandalcoholuse,spendingmore timewithpeers,andincreasedconcernsaboutphysicalappearanceandsocialstatus.Manyanalysts havearguedthatchildrenareunabletocopewiththecomplexandadultenvironmentwhichthey nowneedtonavigatefromever-earlierages,andthatthisisincreasinglevelsofanxietyand rebelliousnessinyoungergroups(James2000). Conversely,themarkersofadulthood–typicallythoughtofasforminglong-termrelationshipsand perhapshavingchildren,stableemployment,financialindependenceandresponsiblebehaviour–are increasinglybeingreachedlaterinlife.Althoughthesetrendsarealsotakingplaceinotherpartsof theworld,theyarehappeningmuchmorequicklyintheUKandUnitedStates(Margoetal 2006). TheaverageageoffirstsexualintercourseintheUKhadfallenfrom20formenand21forwomenin the1950sto16bythemid-1990s,sincewhenithasremainedrelativelystable.Theproportionof youngpeoplewhoaresexuallyactivebeforethelegalageofconsentrosefromlessthan1percentto 25percentoverthesameperiod(Wellingsetal 2001).However,interestingly,hereagainitappears thatthisisapeculiarlyBritishphenomenon.AsFigure2.5shows,38percentofBritish15-year-olds

25

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

hadhadsexin2001/02–afarhigherproportionthaninanycomparableEuropeancountry (Bradshawetal 2006).ThisisyetanotherindicatorthatBritishteenagersarereachingcertainmarkers ofadulthoodearlierintheirlivesthaninthepast. 45 40

38

28

28

Sweden

25

28

Finland

24

Portugal

23

25

Belgium

21

22

Netherlands

Lithuania

21

Greece

19

Hungary

18

22

Austria

18

Czech Republic

15

18

Latvia

20

Estonia

25

France

30

Germany

35

Proportion (%)

26

16

15 10 5

United Kingdom

Slovenia

Italy

Spain

0 Poland

Figure2.5: Proportionof 15-year-oldswho havehadsexual intercourse, 2001/03 Source:Bradshaw etal (2006)

RisingaffluencehasbeenanimportantdriverofthesetrendsintheUK,buttechnologicalchangehas alsounderpinnedmanyofthesechanges.Therehasbeenproliferationofmobilephones:earlierin 2006,49percentofchildrenaged8–11and82percentofthoseaged12–15hadtheirownmobile phone(Ofcom2006).This,incombinationwithincreasedinternetuse,hasmeantthatmanyyoung peopleareincreasinglyabletocontroltheirownsociallivesatyoungerages,planningtheirleisure activitiesindependentlyofadultsupervision. Thereisincreasingevidencethatsimilartrendstowardsmoreadultbehaviourcanbeseeninother areasoflife.Butratherthanseeingthisassomethingthatistakingplacewithinyouthculture,we shouldviewthisasaphenomenonemerginginresponsetothewayUKadultsocietysocialisesand influencesyoungpeople.Punditspointtotheproliferationof‘sextips’forteenagersinyouth magazines,andhealthandbeautyspasfor10-year-oldgirls,asevidencethatchildrenareincreasingly exposedto,andexpectedtonavigate,adultconcernsatyoungerstagesintheirdevelopment(Mayo 2005,Schor2004,SchorandHolt2000). Theimplicationisthatexposuretomessagesfromsay,advertisers,websitesorcertainmagazines whichmaynothavechildwellbeingastheirexplicitaimcanbeunintentionallydetrimentaltoyouth behaviourbyindirectlyseemingtopromoteexactlythemisbehavioursthatthepublicaremost concernedabout–drinking,underagesex,graffiti-ingorevencertainformsofbullyingsuchassocalled‘happyslapping’.Evenreportingontheseeventsinthewrongtonecansendmixedmessages toyoungpeople.Encouragingchildrentobehaveinamoreadultfashion–tobuycosmeticsor productsthatareattachedtocertainlifestyles–canimpactontheirself-esteemandperceptionof howtheyshouldbethinkingandbehaving. Muchofthisrelatestothechangingnatureoftherelationshipbetweenchildrenandconsumerism. Thecrucialdifferencebetweentheinteractionbetweentoday’syoungpeopleandthoseofprevious generationsisthatitisincreasinglyunmediated.Althoughparentsactasguardianstomany consumptionpractices,andcontrolmostpurchasesofgoodsandservices(McKendricketal 2000), youngpeopleincreasinglyactasconsumerswithoutadultguidanceorsupervision(Schor2004,Schor andHolt2000).Thistrendisencouragedbyadvertisersandchild-orientatedcorporationssuchastoy, clothingorevencosmeticmanufacturers,alikebutisviewedasunwelcomebymanyparents.In2004,

26

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

84percentofparentsstatedthattherewastoomuchmarketingdirectedatchildren(NFPI2004). Advertisersareaccusedofredefiningageappropriatenessbyreducingtargetagesandcreatingamore adult-likerelationshipwithchildrenatayoungerage.Oneexampleofthisisthe‘tweening’ofthe6to12-year-oldmarket,withproductspreviouslyaimedatteenagersnowalsobeingaimedatyounger ages,encouragingchildrentocareaboutteenageconcernssuchasdietandbeautyfromayounger age(Schor2004).MorethanacenturyafterCoca-Cola’sfirstcelebrityspokespersonappearedinan advertisement,and55yearsafterthefirsttoy(‘MrPotatoHead’)wasadvertisedontelevision(Mayo 2005),publicfascinationwithunscrupulousadvertisinghasledtoaplethoraofundercovermedia exposésofpotentiallyunethicalpracticesbyadvertisers(ibid). ContemporaryBritishchildrenseemtobemoreenmeshedinconsumerismthaneventheirUS counterparts,andmuchmoresothanchildrenelsewhereintheEU.AsFigure2.6shows,66percent ofBritishchildrensaidthey‘likeclotheswithpopularlabels,’comparedwith52percentofUS children,and46percentofBritishchildrensaidthe‘brandnameisimportant’comparedwith40per centofUSchildrenin2005.

Figure2.6. Children’s consumer involvementin theUK,bysocial class,2005 Source:Mayo (2005)

UK

US 85 84

I care a lot about my games and other stuff

76 78

I like shopping and going to the shops I like collecting the latest things that others are collecting

72 68

52

I like clothes with popular labels

66

47

I wish my parents gave me more money to spend

61

40

When I buy something the brand name is important to me

46

25

I like watching adverts

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Proportion of children agreeing (%)

Note:childrenaged10-12

Thereisemergingevidencethatchildrenarebeginningtoagreewiththisassertionthatthereistoo muchmarketingaimedatthem,andtheyaredemandingcurbsonthe‘useofinappropriate advertisingaimedatyoungpeople’(Mayo2005:35).IntherestofEurope,measuresaretakento protectchildrenfromadvertising–forexample,withbansonadvertisingtounder-12s(which happensinSweden,forexample).Inaddition,culturaldifferencesinyoungpeople’schoicesofleisure activitiesseemtoimpactontheextentofconsumerinvolvementanditsimpactonyouthattitudes. TheevidencesuggeststhatEuropeanchildrenspendmoretimethanUKchildreneitherwiththeir parentsorinpurposefulextracurricularactivities,andsoarelessexposedbothtonegativepeer influencesandtoconsumeristinfluencesthanthoseintheUK(Margoetal 2006).

27

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Delayedadulthood Thecounterpointtothecreepingextensionofadolescenceintochildhoodisitsextensioninto adulthood,whichhasattractedawealthofacademicresearchandtheory–includingArnette’sideaof ‘emergingadulthood’(Arnette2004).Inthemedia,numerousshorthandtermshavebeenmootedfor anewgenerationof‘kidults’and‘boomerangkids’whopostponetraditionalmarkersofthetransition toadulthood.Onaverage,youngpeopleinBritainarenowstayingathomeforlonger,postponing childbirth,livingaloneforlonger,cohabitingforlonger,havingmorerelationships,marryinglater, stayingineducationforlonger,andtakinglongerto‘settle’intoacareer. AlthoughtransitionsarelessextendedthaninmanyotherEuropeancountries(Bynner2005),the trendsovertimeareindisputable:

• Theaverageageoffirst-timemothersincreasedfrom23.7in1971to27.1in2004. • Theaverageageoffirstmarriageincreasedfrom25formenand23forwomenin1971to31and 29respectivelyin2003.

• Theproportionofunder-60scohabitingrosefrom11percentformenand13percentfor womenin1986to24percentand25percentrespectivelyin2004.

• Thenumberofmenandwomenagedbetween25and44livingaloneincreasednearlysix-fold between1973and2004.

• Thenumberofpeopleparticipatinginhighereducationrosefrom621,000in1970/71to 2,436,000in2003/4.

• In2005,57percentofBritishmenaged20to24(and23percentofthoseaged25to29)were stilllivingwiththeirparents,comparedwith38percentand11percentrespectivelyofwomen. (Babbetal 2006,DixonandMargo2006) ThusitappearsthatBritishyoungpeoplearebeinggivenbothincreasingautonomyovercertainareas oftheirlivesatyoungerages(specifically,theirsocial,consumerandsexuallives)andlessmeaningful responsibility(intermsoffamilies,jobs,independentliving).Meanwhile,messagesaboutwhatis ‘cool’intermsofbehaviouraresetincreasinglybyadvertisersandpeersratherthanparents,andas weassertabove,childrenfinditdifficulttocopewiththecomplexandadultenvironment,whichis increasingtheirlevelsofanxietyandrebelliousness(James2000).Isthisborneoutintheevidence? WeconsiderthisquestionindetailinSection5.Inthemeantime,perhapsthemostcompelling indicatorthatpsychologicaldevelopmenthasnotcaughtupwithsocialchangeistheevidenceof declineinyoungpeople’semotionalwell-beingthatisdocumentedbynumerousstudies(Margoetal 2006,Bradshawetal 2006,MargoandSodha2007).

Implicationsforpolicy Insummary,somekeyissuesemergefromtheanalysisabove,whichhaveimplicationsforpolicy.First, thenatureofinteractionbetweenadultsandyoungpeoplehaschanged.Thishasresultedinlesstime, andfeweropportunitiesforinteraction,withadultsoutsideschool,andlessqualitytimebetween parentsandchildren–particularlyamongdisadvantagedgroups.Thismeansthatthereisless opportunityforyoungpeopletolearnandinternalisesocialnormsandadultexpectations.Inaddition, changingandlesshomogeneouscommunitynorms,andadiversityoflocalcultures,makeitlessclear toyoungpeoplehowtheyareexpectedtobehave.Finally,declinesincollectiveefficacymeanthat adultsarelesslikelytosetclearexpectationsincommunitiesandenforcethemthaninthepast. Therehasbeenadivergenceofleisureactivities,whichmeansthatcertaingroupsofyoungpeopleare morevisiblethanothers.Wearelesslikelytoseethemoreaffluent,moreadvantagedyoungpeople onthestreets,astheyareincreasinglyinvolvedinsupervisedextra-curricularactivities.Meanwhile, themoreat-riskyoungpeoplearespendingmoretimeunsupervisedwithpeers–andaretherefore notbenefitingfromthedevelopmentalopportunitiesofferedbytheseactivities. Youngpeople’sattitudesarebecomingbothmoreliberal(forexample,towardssex)andmore challengingandcomplex.Thisispartlyduetonewanddifferentculturalinfluencesemergingfrom

28

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

media,musicand,insomecases,newlyarrivedmigrantsfromabroad,whichhaveincreasedthe heterogeneityofyouthculture.Thereisaperceptionthattrendshavemovedtowardsthe ‘adultification’ofyouth:youngpeopleareincreasinglynavigatingmoreadultconcernsatyounger ages,andtakingmorecontrolovertheirsocial,sexualandconsumerlives,whiletakingless responsibilityfortheirbehaviourinotherareas. Importantly,however,socialchangehasnotbeenmatchedbyincreasedpsychologicalmaturity.There isthereforeapotential‘socialisationgap’,withyoungpeopleperceivedasbeingmoreadultthanthey reallyareandtakingmoreautonomyovercertainaspectsoftheirlives,andyoungpeoplethemselves beinglesswillingtoacceptadultnormsthanpreviously–possiblyduetocounter-influencesfromthe media. Finally,adultsocietyhasbegunincreasinglytofearanddemoniseyoungpeople.Studieshaveshown thattheincreasedmediaandpoliticalfocusonyouthanti-socialbehaviourandchangestoyouth justicepolicy(suchasloweringtheageofcriminalresponsibilityto10)hasputadisproportionate focusonthebehaviourofchildren.Britonsaremorelikelytoholdyoungpeopleindependently responsiblefortheirbehaviourthanpeopleinothercountries,farmorelikelythanotherEuropeansto saythatyoungpeoplearepredominantlyresponsibleforanti-socialbehaviour,andarealsomorelikely tocite‘lackofdiscipline’astherootcause.Seventy-ninepercentofBritonsthoughtthatthisissue underpinnedanti-socialbehaviour,comparedwith69percentofSpaniards,62percentofItalians and58percentofFrenchpeople(ADTEurope2006). Thissectionhasprovidedanimportantbackgroundforwhatfollows,inSection3,whereweconsider thetrendsinyouthoffendingintheUKandelsewhereintheworld.Weinvestigatewhether,againsta backdropofchangingrelationshipsbetweenadultsandyoungpeople,andincreasinglydifferentsocial andfamilialcontexts,youngpeople’sbehaviourisworsening.

29

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

3.YouthoffendingintheEuropeancontext BeforediscussingtheEuropeancontextforoffending,itisinterestingtoexaminetheEuropean contextforyoungpeople.TherecentstudybyUNICEF(UNICEF2007)suggestedthatyoung peopleintheUKhavethelowestlevelofwell-beinginEurope.Britishyoungpeopleexperience particularlylowlevelsofsubjectivewell-beingandreportespeciallypoorrelationshipswiththeir peersandparents.Theyalsohaverelativelylowlevelsofmaterialwell-being,withahigh proportionlivinginpoverty.Itmaybenocoincidencethattheyalsoreporthighlevelsofrisk behaviours,includingfighting,drinking,drug-takingandteenagepregnancy. Anotheraspectofthecontextinwhichyoungpeopleliveisthelevelofsupportprovidedtofamilies bytheGovernment.TheOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopmenthascollecteddata from2003(seeFigure3.1below)whichshowsthattheUKspendslessthantheOECDaverageon familyservicessuchaschildcareandearlyeducationfacilities,assistanceforyoungpeople,residential facilities,andcentre-basedfacilitiesandhomehelpservicesforfamiliesinneed.

2.5

2.0

1.5

% GDP 1.0

0.5

0.0

De nm Sw ark e Ice d en l Fr a nd a No nc e Hu rwa ng y Fi ar y n Ne Be lan th lgi d er um la Un Por nd ite Ge tug s d rm al Ki a n n Augd o y str m al Cz ia ec Spa i h Un R Ita n ite epu ly d bl S t ic Sl ov a a k Au te s s Lu Rep tria xe ub m li bo c Po urg l Sw Gre and i t Ne ze ece w r la Ze nd al Ire and Ca lan d na da

Figure3.1: Spendingon familyservices,as percentageof GDP,compared withOECD average,2003 Source:OECD SocialExpenditure Database

ComparablestatisticsforEuropeancountriesareoftenhardtocompile,andthisisparticularlytruefor youthoffending.Countriestendtovaryintheirdefinitionofanoffence,ageofcriminalresponsibility andhowfiguresarecollected.Thereisdataavailablefrompolicerecordsandvictimisationsurveys.As thepeakageforoffendingisinthemid-to-lateteenageyears,wecanusetheseoverallcrimeratesas aroughindicatoroflevelsofyouthcrime.

Trendsinyouthoffending TheBritishCrimeSurvey(BCS)suggeststhat,fromitspeakin1995tothemostrecentdatafor 2007,thenumberofcrimesinEnglandandWaleshasfallenby46percent,withvehiclecrime andburglaryfallingbyoverahalfandviolentcrimefallingby47percentduringthatperiod. CrimeisnowatitslowestrecordedlevelsincetheBCSbeganin1981.However,onlyaminorityof

30

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

thepublicbelievesthatthecriminaljusticesystemiseffectiveinreducingcrime,andthe proportionofpeoplewhobelievethatitiseffectiveindealingwithyoungpeopleaccusedofa crimehasfallento24percent(HomeOffice2008). Inrecentyears,therehasbeenapatternofdivergenceinEuropeancountriesbetweenofficially recordedcrimeandcrimesreportedbyvictimstotheInternationalCriminalVictimisationSurvey. Thisisespeciallytrueforviolentcrimes.Policerecordsshowanincreaseinreportingofviolent crime(Aebietal 2006).However,datafromatelephonesurveyofvictimsinEuropeancountries suggestthatviolentcrimeroseinthelate1990s,beforefallinginthefirsthalfofthisdecade (Stevensetal2006,vanDijketal2005).Propertyoffenceshavefalleninpolicerecordsandfallen fasterinvictimisationsurveysinEurope.Thissuggeststhattheapparentriseinviolentcrimein the1990smayhavesensitisedpeopletocrimetosuchanextentthattheybecamemorelikelyto reportittothepolice,evenasithasbeenfalling.Swedishresearchalsoshowshowpolitical partiesinopposition(especiallyright-wingparties)useyouthcrimeasastickwithwhichtobeat theincumbentparty,againincreasingpublicconcernaboutyouthcrime(Estrada2005). InmanyEuropeancountriesithasbeensuggestedthatarelativelysmallgroupofyoungpeople areresponsibleforthemajorityofcrimes.IntheUK,theOffendingCrimeandJusticesurvey suggeststhat10percentofoffendersareresponsibleforhalfofallcrimescommitted(Stevens andGladstone2002,HomeOffice2006).Preventingtheemergenceofthisgroupofpersistent youngoffenderscouldresultinlargereductionsinoverallcrimerates. OffendingintheUK LookinginmoredetailatwhooffendsintheUKisrevealing.Anestimated2.8millionyoung peopleoffendedin2005(HomeOffice2005).Thisrepresentsaquarterofallyoungpeopleaged 10to25.Amongthequarterofyoungpeoplewhohadcommittedacoreoffenceinthelast12 months,half(51percent)reportedcommittingaseriousoffence(assaultwithinjury,theftfroma person,theftofavehicle,burglary,sellingclass-Adrugsorrobbery). Ifwetotalupoffendingforalloffencetypes,thisshowsthatmanyyoungpeoplewhohad committedanoffencehadoffendedononlyafewoccasions.Almostathird(31percent)of youngpeoplewhoreportedoffendingsaidtheyhadonlycommittedoneoffenceinthepast12 months.Afurther28percenthadcommittedtwoorthreeoffences.However,almostathird(31 percent)ofoffenders(equatingto7percentofall10-to25-year-olds)reportedcommittingsix ormoreoffencesinthepast12months,andwereclassifiedas‘frequentoffenders’. Threepercentofyoungpeoplehadcommittedatleastonebutfewerthansixseriousoffences, andhadoffendedsixormoretimes,includinglessseriousoffences.Onepercenthadfrequently committedseriousoffences(sixormoretimesinthelast12months)andwereclassifiedas ‘frequentseriousoffenders’.Ninepercenthadcommittedaseriousoffencebuthadoffended fewerthansixtimes,while2percenthadoffendedmorethansixtimesbuthadonlycommitted lessseriousoffences.Afurther10percenthadonlycommittedlessseriousoffencesand committedthesefewerthansixtimes.Thevastmajority(75percent)hadnotoffendedatall. In2005,malesweremorelikelytohaveoffendedinthepast12monthsthanfemales.Nearlyone third(30percent)ofmaleshadcommittedatleastoneofthecoreoffences,comparedwithone fifth(21percent)offemales. Formales,theprevalenceofoffendingpeakedamong16-to19-year-olds.Fortypercentof malesinthisagegrouphadreportedcommittingoneormoreofthecoreoffences(significantly higherthanamongmalesagedunder14andthoseaged20ormore).Levelsofseriousoffending peakedamongmalesagedfrom18to19(22percent),whilelevelsoffrequentoffendingwere morespreadoutacrossthedifferentagegroups.Femaleoffendingpeakedearlierthanmale offending,atage14-15.Onethird(33percent)offemalesinthisagegrouphadoffended–a significantlyhigherproportionthaninotheragegroups. Asmentionedabove,10-to25-year-oldswhohadcommittedsixormoreoffences(7percentof thepopulationand30percentofoffendersinthisagegroup)wereresponsibleforthevast

31

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

majorityofalloffencesmeasuredbythesurvey.Justovereightin10offencesmeasured(83per cent)werecommittedbythisgroup.Frequentoffendersalsoaccountedfor82percentofall seriousoffencesmeasured(HomeOffice2005).Thisisclearlythegroupweshouldbetargeting. AlthoughtheanalysisabovesuggeststhattheUKdoesnotexperiencesignificantlyworsecrime thanelsewhere,itisoftenarguedthattheUKsuffersmoreintractableandhigherlevelsofantisocialbehaviour–thekeyprecursortocrime,andanissuethathasimportantinfluencesonpublic attitudestoandfearofcrime–thanothercountriesinWesternEurope.

Differentdefinitionsofanti-socialbehaviour IntheUK,anti-socialbehaviourisdefinedas:‘behaviourwhichcausesorislikelytocause harassment,alarmordistresstooneormorepeoplewhoarenotinthesamehouseholdasthe perpetrator’(HomeOffice2003).However,thisdefinitionraisesanumberofdifficulties– primarilythatpeoplehaveverydifferentexpectationsandlevelsoftolerance.Whatseemslike anti-socialbehaviourtoonepersonmightbeseenasnormalbehaviourbyanother(Buddetal 2005). TheOffendingCrimeandJusticeSurvey (HomeOffice2006)namesfourkeyanti-social behaviours:

• Beingnoisyorrudeinapublicplace,causingsomeonetocomplain • Behavinginawaythatresultedinaneighbourcomplaining • Graffitiinapublicplace • Threateningorbeingrudetosomeonebecauseoftheirraceorreligion. Inopinionsurveys,oneofthekeyreasonsforcomplaintsaboutyouthbehaviourintheUKin 2005/6was‘youngpeoplehangingaround’. InSwedenandFinland,comparabledefinitionsofanti-socialbehaviourtothoseusedintheUK aredifficulttofind.StatisticsontheprevalenceofthesebehavioursexistintheUK,butarenot collectedinothercountries.So,tobenchmarkthebehaviourofUKyouthwiththoseinother countries,differentbehaviourswereusedinthewritingofthisreport.

Youthbehaviour:trendsandperceptions Below,weconsiderseveralindicatorsofyouthbehaviour:

• Relationshipswithpeers • Incidentsoffighting • Useofdrugsoralcoholandsmoking. Wherepossible,wealsoexaminetrendsinanti-socialbehaviourasdefinedbytheHomeOfficein theUK. BenchmarkingBritishchildren’sexperiencesofrelationshipswiththeirpeersagainsttheir counterpartsinotherEuropeancountriesgivesconsiderablecauseforconcern.InEnglandin 2001/02,just45percentofboysand56percentofgirlsaged11saidthattheirpeerswere‘kind andhelpful’–markedlyfewerthaninanyothercountry–althoughIrelandandScotlandfared better,asFigure3.2(below)shows. AsFigure3.3(below)shows,youngpeopleinBritainsurveyedin2001/2weremorelikelythan themajorityoftheircontinentalcounterpartstohavebeeninvolvedinaphysicalfightinthe previous12months.Forty-fourpercentof15-year-oldsinBritainhadbeeninvolvedinafight, comparedwithjust25percentofthoseinFinland,28percentinGermanyand35percentin Sweden(Bradshawetal 2006). Intermsofalcoholandsubstancemisuse,in2003,38percentofBritish15-year-oldshadtried cannabis,comparedwith27percentinGermanyandjust7percentinSweden.Theinternational

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Figure3.2. Proportionof11year-oldssaying theirpeersare ‘kindandhelpful’, 2001/02 Source:Currieet al (2004)

100 Girls

90

88

Boys

78

80 72 70

Proportion (%)

32

60

59

56

50

53

6061

59 56

65 62

68 66

66

65 62

68

70 68

78 76

77 73

81

84 81

86 83

82

85 83

8383

65

45

40 30 20 10

48

49

Lithuania

l Po rtu ga

48

Hungary

d

Sw ed en

er lan

Gr ee ce

Sw itz

No

rw ay De nm ar k Ge rm an y Sc ot lan d

Sp ain

Ire lan d

lan d

Ca na da

Fin

Fr an ce

Ita ly

A US

Lit hu an ia

Cz ec h

En g

lan d Re pu bli c

0

Country

60

48

Slovenia

Malta

Belgium

Spain

45

Greece

Latvia

44

44

United Kingdom

Ireland

Netherlands

38

Austria

Portugal

41

Poland

36

40

Denmark

35

39

Italy

35

Sweden

40

39

40

42

38

40

38

France

50

Proportion (%)

28

30 25 20

10

Czech Republic

Estonia

Germany

0 Finland

Figure3.3. Proportionof 15-year-oldswho havebeen involvedina physicalfightin theprevious12 months,2001/02 Source:Bradshaw etal (2006)

Country

pictureforteenagedrunkennessissimilar:asFigure3.4shows,British15-year-oldsweremore likelythanthoseinanyotherEuropeancountry,exceptforIrelandandDenmark,tohavebeen drunk20timesormoreintheirlives(Bradshawetal 2006). ThisnotionofyoungpeopleintheUKbeing‘worsebehavedthanothers’–popularinmedia reportage–issupportedbyarangeofotherdatashowingthatBritonsbecomesexuallyactiveat earlierages,andaremorelikelytojoingangs,thantheirpeerselsewhere(Margoetal 2006).This isapicturethatthepresshasbeenquicktopaint,buttherehavebeenmanycriticismsofthe evidencefromthoseclaimingitisflawedorunfairlynegative.Somedatasourcesfromwithinthe UKseemtosuggestthat‘conductdisorders’arebecomingmoreofaproblem.Figure3.5suggests thatparentsbelievethatconductproblemsincreasedintheUKbetween1974and1999. Butthisevidenceissomeyearsold,datingbackto1999.Thereisadditionalevidencethat perceptionsoflevelsofanti-socialbehaviour–basedonthefourtypesofbehaviourusedbythe

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

40 36 35 30 30 26

26

27

15 10

11

14

14

Slovak Republic

17

21

21

Lithuania

20

Austria

25

Latvia

Figure3.4. Proportionof 15-year-oldswho havebeendrunk 20timesormore, 2003 Source:Bradshaw etal (2006)

Proportion (%)

33

18

15

12

2

3

3

3

Portugal

5

Greece

10 4

5

6

7

Denmark

Ireland

United Kingdom

Estonia

Finland

Czech Republic

Sweden

Slovenia

Germany

Hungary

Poland

Belgium

Netherlands

Italy

Malta

35

1974 30

1986 1999

Proportion of children whose parents reported problems (%)

Figure3.5. Conductproblems atage16 reportedby parentsinthe UK,1974,1986 and1999 Source:Collishaw etal (2004a)

France

Cyprus

0

25

20

15

10

5

0 Bullying

Stealing

Lying

Disobedience

Type of problem

HomeOffice–increasedintheUKbetween1996and2002/03,justasoverallcrimerateswere falling.Duringthisperiodtherewasa44percentriseintheproportionofpeopleperceivingvery orfairlybigproblemswithvandalismandgraffitiintheirlocalarea,anda42percentrisein complaintsabout‘teenagershangingaround’,whiletheoveralllevelofcrimeactuallyfellby36 percent(Nicholasetal 2005,Wood2005).Thereareworryingsignsthatperceptionsofrates anti-socialbehaviourareincreasingoncemore:2006showedincreasesinallmeasures,as indicatedbyFigure3.6. Publicperceptionsoftrendsinbehaviourarenotsupportedbythehardevidence:theHome Officereportsthatin2005(themostrecentyearforwhichstatisticsareavailable)justundera quarter(23percent)ofyoungpeopleagedfrom10to25hadcommittedatleastoneanti-social

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Figure3.6. Percentage perceivingveryor fairlybig problemswith anti-social behaviour,1992 to2005/06 Source:ippr analysisofBritish CrimeSurvey (variousyears)

Perceptionof: 40

Vandalism and graffiti

Drug use or dealing

Teenagers hanging around

Noisy neighbours

Drunk or rowdy behaviour

35

30

25

Percentage

34

20

15

10

5

0 1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

actofthefiveshowninFigure3.6(HomeOffice2005)–equivalentto2.6millionyoungpeople. Indeed,therehasbeennosignificantdifferenceinlevelsofanti-socialbehavioursince2003,when recordsbegan.

Implicationsforpolicy Insummary,despitetheclaimstothecontrary,therehavesimplynotbeenlargerisesinyouthantisocialbehaviourintheUK.Thechiefproblemappearstobeacombinationofcertainbehaviours,such asdrinkinganddrugtaking,andveryhighlevelsofpublicfear.Thisisnodoubtcompoundedbya deepdistrustofgovernmentcrimefigures(Dixonetal 2006).Butisworsenedtoobythefactthatwe intheUKconsidermisbehaviourbyyoungpeople,suchasdrinking,smokingandhangingaroundon thestreetstobeaseriousproblem–andinmanywaysitis,sinceunsupervisedcontactwithpeers cancreateproblemsforsomegroupsofyoungpeople–whileinothercountries,whichexperience similarlevelsofthesebehaviours,thepublicandgovernmentsaremuchlessconcerned. Clearly,understandingwhatdrivespublicfearisvital.ConcernsaboutdrinkingandsmokingintheUK mayrelatetotheculturearoundtheseactshere–agroupofyoungpeopledrinkingonaresidential streetandbecomingaggressivewouldbeofmoreconcernthanayoungpersondrinkingoverdinner withhisorherparents,asweknowtheyaremorelikelytodoinFranceorItaly.Butfiguresonthisare hardtocomeby.Theframeinwhichthesediscussionsaretakingplacealsomatters:asdetailedatthe startofthispaper,perceptionsofyoungpeoplehavebeencloudedbyintensereportingofafewvery seriousinstancesofyouthstabbingsandguncrime.Therecanbenoquestionthatknowledgeofsuch crimes,perpetratedbyaverysmallgroupofyoungpeople,affecthowthepublicperceivesyoung peopleingeneral. TheevidenceprovidedinSection2suggeststhattherehasbeenabreakdowninrelationsbetween youthandadultsintheUK,andthatpublicfearisinlargepartdrivenbytheincreasingvisibilityof certaingroupsofunsupervisedyoungpeopleandotherfactsofsocialchange.Respondingtosocial changewillthereforebeofcentralimportancetoanewapproachthattacklestheculturewithinwhich offendingbehaviouroccursandisperceived.ThefactthatBritishyouthdonotsharethesamedisdain

35

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

foroffendingandanti-socialbehaviourasthoseincountriessuchasFinland,andarelesslikelyto respectthepoliceandadultauthorityfigures,doessuggestthatnewstrategiesareneededifweare toembedadultnormsofbehaviourandattitudes. Theresponsetosocialchangeandyouthbehaviourmustbebig-picture,aimedattheprimarylevelof prevention.Buttheaimshouldnotbetoreversesocialchange–indeed,manyofthemostimportant andpositivedevelopmentsinsocietyresultfromtheverysameshifts.Butwedoneedtorethinkthe infrastructuresupportingfamilies,communities,schoolsandindividualsifwearetoensurethatthere arefewernegativeconsequencesforyoungpeople’sdevelopment. Weshouldalsonotbefatalisticaboutsomeaspectsofsocialchange.Weworry,rightly,thatparents arespendinglesstimewithchildrenthaninthepast(or,specifically,inthe‘goldenage’ofthe 1950s),butthisisnotaninevitabledecline.Manypolicyleversexistthatcanensurethatparentsare moreabletobalanceworkwithcaringduties–forexample,flexibleworkingandbetteraccessto childcare.(Theseoptionshavebeenhighlightedinpreviousipprreports,suchasHughesandCook 2007,Margoetal 2006,DixonandMargo2006,PearceandPaxton2005,andStanleyed2005.) However,itisalsoworthremindingourselvesthatwhilemanyyoungpeopleengageinanti-social behaviour,itremainsaminoritywhoactuallycommitanoffence,andafarsmallerminoritywhoare frequentorseriousoffenders(HomeOffice2005).Theseat-riskyoungpeoplewillrequirean additionalsecondary-levelresponse,butthefirststepistoidentifywhotheyare.Thisisthequestion thatweaddressinthefollowingsection.

36

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

4.Riskfactorsforoffending Researchshowsunequivocallythatitispossibletoidentifythefactorsthatpredisposeyoungpeople tooffend.ArecentlypublishedlongitudinalstudybyFarringtonetal (2006)showedthatthemost prolificoffendersstartearly,betweentheagesof10and13,andhavelongercriminalcareersthan othercriminals,lastingonaverage13years.Hence,theauthorsargue,preventionresourcesshouldbe aimedatthosewhoaremostatriskofprolificoffendingamongpre-schoolandprimaryagechildren. Instantly,thissuggestsproblemswiththeUKapproach–alreadyidentifiedhereaslackingproper provisionforprimarypreventionforchildrenaged5-12.Buttheevidencerequiresreview.Todothis, ipprhasdrawnfrompreviousstudiesandundertakenitsownoriginalanalysisusingtheBritishCohort Studies. Table4.1:Factorsthatimpactonlikelihoodofoffending Variable Category Offender(%) Frequentoffender*(%) Seriousoffender**(%) Sex Female 24 5 13 Male 30 8 14 Age 10to11 16 3 8 12to13 27 5 14 14to15 35 10 18 Notes:*Anoffenderwhohascommittedsixormoreoffencesinthelast12months **Seriousoffencesinclude:theftofavehicle,burglary,robbery,theftfromaperson,assaultresultingininjury,selling class-Adrugs

Table4.1presentsregressionanalysisofthefactorsthatimpactonlikelihoodofoffending,basedon HomeOfficedataanalysis.Itisimportanttonotethatthekeyfactorassociatedwithoffendingis socioeconomicbackground.Thisdoesnotfeatureinthetable,whichcontrolsforsocioeconomic factors,buthasbeenprovenincountlesspreviousreportsandstudiesincludingMargoetal (2006), whichshowsthatcomingfromadisadvantagedareatrumpsmostotherfactors.InTable4.2, highlightedinblackarethefactorsmostassociatedwithoffending. Table4.2:Offendingcommittedinthelast12monthsby10-to15-year-olds,bysociodemographicand lifestylevariables Variable Category Offender(%) Frequentoffender(%) Seriousoffender(%) Lifestyleandbehaviour Beingdrunkoncea monthormorein lastyear

No Yes

24 72

5 32

12 43

Takendrugsinlastyear No Yes Victimofapersonal No crime Yes

23 70 18 47

4 36 3 13

11 49 7 28

Attitudetocertain criminalacts

Lesslikelytoagree criminalactsareOK Morelikelytoagree criminalactsareOK

25

5

12

47

18

26

No Yes

16 55

3 18

6 33

Committed anti-socialbehaviour inthelastyear

cont.nextpage

37

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Variable

Category

Offender(%) Frequentoffender(%)

Seriousoffender(%)

Disorderproblems inthearea

Noproblems One-to-threeproblems Fourormoreproblems

15 28 38

4 6 11

7 12 23

Amounttodo inthearea

Quitealot Notverymuchornothing

22 30

5 8

11 16

Whethergeton withparents

Getonwellwithparent(s) Getonbadlywithat leastoneparent

26 56

6 31

13 35

Youngperson’s perceptionofparents

Goodparentingskills Poorparentingskills

25 38

6 13

12 26

Whetherfriendsor siblingshavebeenin troublewithpolice inlastyear

No

20

4

10

Yes

47

15

24

No Yes

23 52

5 23

11 33

Howmuchyoucare Alot aboutwhatyour Alittleornotatall parents/guardiansthink

22 40

5 12

11 22

Parents/guardians knowwhoyour friendsare

Parentsknowalloffriends Parentsonlyknow someoffriends

19

3

11

32

9

16

Youngpeople’s perceptionofparents’ attitudestocriminal behaviour

Parentsperceivedtohave lessrelaxedattitude 25 Parentsperceivedtohave morerelaxedattitude 48

5

12

24

29

Freetimespentwith parents

Sometoalloftime Littleornotime

24 46

5 12

12 23

Whetherevertruanted

No Yes

21 48

5 25

11 27

Whethereverbeen suspendedorexpelled

No Yes

25 55

5 22

12 35

Perceptionofschool

Goodperception Badperception

26 38

6 13

12 24

Whetherparticipate inafter-schoolgroups

Yes No

26 30

6 9

12 19

Areafactors

Familyfactors

Whetherparentsever beenintroublewith thepolice

Schoolfactors

(Source:HomeOffice2005) Themostimportantfactorsinclude,indescendingorderofimportance:

• Havingbeendrunkonceormoreamonthinlast12months(associatedwith72percentof offenders)

• Havingtakendrugsinlast12months(associatedwith70percentofoffenders) • Gettingonbadlywithatleastoneparent(associatedwith56percentofoffenders)

38

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

• Havingcommittedanti-socialbehaviourinthepastyear(55percentassociated) • Havingbeensuspendedorexpelledfromschool(55percent) • Parentswhohavebeenintroublewiththepolice(52percent). Anti-socialbehaviouris,ofcourse,akeyriskfactorassociatedwithoffending.Inresponse,the Governmenthasdevelopedacomprehensiveprogrammeofordersandsupportforyoungpeoplewho engageinanti-socialbehaviour.Butcrucially,itisnotthecasethatallyoungpeoplewhoare persistentlyanti-socialprogresstomoreseriouscrime.HomeOfficeresearchshowsthatjustoverhalf therespondentswhoreportedcommittinganactofanti-socialbehaviourinthepreceding12months hadalsocommittedacoreoffence.Thiscompareswith16percentforthosewhohadnotalso demonstratedanti-socialbehaviour.Thosewhocommittedanti-socialbehaviourfrequentlywere significantlymorelikelythantheinfrequentoffendergrouptohavealsocommittedanoffence–77 percentversus46percent(HomeOffice2005). Severaladditionalfactorsemergefromthetableasbeingparticularlyassociatedwithyoungpeople whooffend:

• Havingaparentwhoisanoffender,poorrelationswithparentsand/orspendinglesstimewith parents

• Disorderinthelocalareaandlackofadultinterventioninyouthactivities • Lackofextracurricularactivitiesand/orhavinglittleornothingtodointhelocalarea • Peersandsiblingswhooffendand/orspendingmoretimewithpeersratherthanparents • Truantingorbeingexpelledfromschool. Inaddition,severalprotectivefactorsemerge:

• Highlevelsofcollectiveefficacylocally • Engaginginpositivesocialisingactivities,andlotstodolocally • Havingagoodrelationshipwithparents • Havingpositivepeerrelationships • Havingapositiveschoolexperience. Theseareallcontextualfactorsrelatingtothefamilyandsocialcontextwithinwhichtheindividual lives.Again,thispresentsachallengesince,astheanalysisaboverevealed,Britishyouth(particularly thosefromdisadvantagedbackgrounds)tendtospendmoretimewithpeersandlesstimewith parentsthanthoseinothercountries,andspendlesstimeinpurposefulactivitiesthanmore advantagedyoungpeople.Butthekeyfindinghereistheimportanceoffamilialandsocialcontextto offending–somethingwereturntoinSection6. Researchalsoallowsustounderstandbetterhowandwhycharacteristicssuchaspoorparentingand moretimespentwithpeersimpactonlikelihoodofoffending.Inlargepart,thisisduetohowthese factorsimpactonyoungpeople’semotionalandsocialdevelopment. Itisimportanttorememberthatnotallyoungpeoplewhodisplaytheseriskfactorswillgoonto becomeseriousoffenders.Whilethestatisticalassociationsbetweenriskfactorsandyouthoffending havebeenclearlydemonstrated,thecausalmechanismsarelesswellunderstood.Intheabsenceof definitiveevidenceoncauseandeffect,weshouldthinkoftheseriskfactorsastendingtopredispose youngpeopletocrime. Butmanypeoplewhoexperiencetheseriskfactorswillbeabletoovercometheirinfluencesandavoid crime,withouttheneedforinterventionintheirlives.Thisshouldprovideastrongwarningagainst interventionsthatimposeharmorrestrictionsonyoungpeopleandtheirfamiliesbecauseofwhat theymight dointhefuture.Giventhatwecannotbesurewhatpeoplewilldointhefuture,andthe well-knownphenomenon,knownaslabelling,thatyoungpeoplewhoaretreatedascriminalsoften goontobecomecriminals(McAraandMcVie2007),weshouldavoidcoercingchildrenandfamilies intoprogrammesonthebasisthatweknowwhatisbestforthem.

39

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Theimportanceofsocialandemotionalskills Belowweexaminetheevidenceontheroleofsocialandemotionaldevelopmentinyouthbehaviour andoffending,beforeexplaininghowtheriskfactorsidentifiedaboveacttoincreaseayoung person’schancesofoffendingasaresultoftheirimpactonsocialandemotionaldevelopment. Theimportanceofemotionalandsocialskillstolifechancesingeneralisgainingrecognitionin governmentandbeyond.TheanalysisbyLeonFeinsteinandcolleaguesofthe1970BritishCohort Studyshowsthatemotionalandsocialwell-beinginyoungadulthood,includinghighself-esteem, internallocusofcontrol(thedegreetowhicheventsareperceivedasbeingwithintheircontrol)and positivepeerrelations,hadaconsiderableeffectindeterminingadultbehavioursforthisgroup, includingoffending(reportedinMargoetal 2006). WorkbyHeckmanandcolleagues–whichmeasuredseparatelytheimpactofcognitiveskills(as shownthroughqualificationsandsocialandemotionalskills)indicatedbylocusofcontrolandselfesteemmeasures–foundthatlowlevelsofsocialandemotionalskillsandcognitiveskillswereequally importantdeterminantsofthelikelihoodofservingajailtermandoftakingpartinillegalactivities (Heckmanetal 2006). Butthedistinctionbetweenemotional/socialandcognitiveskillsisafalseone.Inordertolearnto read,achildrequiresnotonlytheintellectualcapacitytolearn,butalsothepsychologicalpropensity –forinstance,toconcentrateonlearningthewords–tobemotivatedtostudy,andtobeconfident enoughtotesttheirreadingskills.Socialdevelopmentalsocomesintoit,sothatifthechildfeelsan urgetothrowtheirbookattheteacherinfrustrationatthedifficultyofthetaskset,theyrequirean understandingofcauseandeffectandconcernfortheconsequencesoftheiractions(whichmaybe longerterm),aswellastheabilitytocontrolhowtheyexpresstheiremotions.Tobehavewell,achild requiresnotonlyemotionalmaturityandsocialskills,butalsotheintellectualcapacitytounderstand whatisrightandwrong. Wehaveconductednewanalysistoexaminetherelativesignificanceofdifferentemotionalfactorsin childhoodforbehaviouraloutcomesinadolescence.ThisanalysisusesdatafromtheBritishCohort Studytolookatwhichchildhoodfactorsareassociatedwithbehaviouralproblemsbyage16.Our findings,methodologyandmodelsareoutlinedfullyintheAppendixtothisreport.Wecontrolledfor awiderangeofsocioeconomicanddemographicvariablesatbirth,ages10and16,andincluded measuresoflocusofcontrolatage10,self-esteematage10,thedifferenceinstandardisedlocusof controlandself-esteemscoresbetweenages10and16,arangeofbehavioural/emotionalindicators atage10,andreadingandmathematicaltestscoresatage10. Whatouranalysisshowsisthat,whilesocioeconomicfactorsremaincentraltoexplainingwhysome youngpeopleoffend,indicatorsofemotionalwell-beingatage10–locusofcontrol,self-esteem, andsomebehaviouralandemotionalindicators–haveasignificantrelationshipwithbehavioural outcomesatage16. Weconsideredwhichfactorswereassociatedwith:

• Higherlevelsofaggressiveconductproblemsatage16(evidencedbyfightingorbullying) • Non-aggressiveconductproblemsatage16(evidencedbystealing,lyinganddisobedience) • Hyperactivityatage16(evidencedbyfidgeting,restlessnessandinattention) • Emotionalanxietyatage16(evidencedbymisery,worriesandbeingfearfulofnewsituations). Again,emotionalindicatorsatage10seemedtobehighlyimportantinexplainingvarianceacross theseoutcomes. So,children’semotionalwell-beingatage10canpredicttheirbehaviouratage16.Thissuggeststhat interventionsaimedatprimaryschoolagechildrenthatimproveemotionalwell-beingcouldreduce theriskofcommittingoffencesorconductdisordersatage16.Crucially,therisk-factoranalysis reportedthusfardoessupporttheclaimthatwenowhaveagoodunderstandingofthemost importantfactorsunderpinningoffending.Thisagainhighlightstheimportanceofinterventionsaimed

40

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

attheprimarylevel–reachingyoungpeoplebeforetheyoffendandwhileitisstillpossibleto influencethesocialandemotionalinfluenceswhichpredisposechildrentooffend. Beforeexamininginmoredetailhowchildrendevelopemotionalwell-being,inthenextsectionwe lookathowandwhenchildrendevelopemotionalandmoralmaturity–theabilitytocontrol behaviourandemotionalresponses.Thisisimportanttoascertaininghowappropriateitistoexpect certainbehavioursfromyoungpeople.

41

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

5.Thedevelopmentofmoralresponsibility Keytothecurrentapproachtoyouthoffendingisthebeliefthatchildrenasyoungas10yearsold canbeheldcriminallyresponsible–thattheyareabletounderstandtheconsequencesoftheir actions.Butdoespsychologicalandscientificresearchsupportthebeliefthat10-year-oldsaremorally andemotionallymatureenoughtobeheldcriminallyresponsible?Andwhatdoesresearchteachus aboutwhatkindsofinterventionswouldbemosteffectiveindeterringyoungpeoplefromcrime? Bothpsychologyandbehaviouralscienceprovidesomerevealinganswerstothesequestions.

Phasesofpsychosocialdevelopment Inthe1950sand1960sthepsychologistEriksonarguedthattheprocessofpsychosocial developmentconsistsofeightphases(seeTable5.1).Eachstageisregardedasa‘psychosocialcrisis’ thatarisesanddemandsresolutionbeforethenextstageofpsychologicaldevelopmentcanbe satisfactorilynegotiated.Thesestagesareconceivedinanalmostarchitecturalsense.Satisfactory learningandresolutionofeachcrisisarenecessaryifthechildistomanagethenextandsubsequent stagessatisfactorily. Table5.1highlightsthekeystagesidentifiedbyErikson.Thefirstisnowcommonlyknownin psychologycirclesas‘earlyattachment’–thechildmustfeelsecureandnurturedbythecaregiver,to avoiddevelopingasenseofinsecurity.Stagetwoinvolvesthechildgraspingself-control,butheor shestillrequiressupportandnurturefromthecaregivertoovercomethepsychosocialcrisis.Although hisstagesofdevelopmentseemmainlytodescribetheprocessofgainingindependenceandmoral autonomy,Eriksonemphasisestheneedforsecurity,protection,supportandstructurethroughout. Withoutthese,heargues,thepsychologicaldevelopmentofthechildwillbestuntedorundermined.

Table5.1:Erikson’seightstagesofpsychosocialdevelopment Stage Ages Basicconflict Importantevent

Summary

1.Oralsensory

Birthto12-18 Trustvs.mistrust months

Feeding

Theinfantmustformaloving,trusting relationshipwiththecaregiver,orrisks developingasenseofmistrustandinsecurity.

2.Muscularanal

18months to3years

Autonomyvs. shame/doubt

Toilettraining

Thechild’senergiesaredirectedtowardthe developmentofphysicalskills,includingwalking, grasping.Ifnotencouragedandsupported,the childrisksexperiencingshameanddoubt.

3.Locomotor 3-6years

Initiativevs. guilt

Independence

Thechildcontinuestobecomemoreassertive andtotakemoreinitiative,butmaybetoo forceful,whichneedstobehandledsensitively.

4.Latency

Industryvs. inferiority

School

Thechildmustbehelpedtomeetdemandsto learnnewskillsorriskasenseofinferiority, failureandincompetence.

5.Adolescence 12-18years

Identityvs. roleconfusion

Peerrelationships

Theteenagermustachieveasenseofidentityin occupation,sexroles,politics,andreligion.

6.Young adulthood

19-40years

Intimacyvs. isolation

Loverelationships

Theyoungadultmustdevelopintimate relationshipsorsufferfeelingsofisolation.

7.Middle adulthood

40-65years

Generativityvs. stagnation

Parenting

Eachadultmustfindsomewaytosatisfyand supportthenextgeneration.

8.Maturity

65todeath

Egointegrity vs.despair

Reflectiononand acceptanceof one’slife

Theculminationisastrongsenseofagencyand fulfilment.

6-12years

Source:AdaptedfromErikson(1950,1958,1964,1968)

42

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Erikson’stheoryholdsthatchildrendonotreachemotionalmaturityuntilaroundtheageof12(and thatthisisnotemotionalmaturityinthesensethatadultswouldunderstandit,butthecapacityto understandthedifferencebetweenrightandwrong).Itsuggeststhatprocessesvitaltodevelopment includetheexperienceofdemocraticplay,whereidentityandcreativitycanflourish,alongside purposeful,orderedinteraction–whetherthroughinteractionwithparents,siblingsorpeers–where senseofpurposeandunderstandingofstatusandrolecandevelop.Botharerequiredforsecure development(Erikson1968). Researchalsosuggeststherearecleardevelopmentaldifferencesbetweengirlsandboys.Slowersocial andemotionaldevelopmentofboyshaslongbeenusedtoexplainthedisproportionatelyhigh percentageofseriouscrimescommittedbymalejuveniles(Cohn1991).OneinfluentialUSstudy foundsignificantgenderdifferencesin‘egodevelopment’–essentially,emotionalandpsychological maturity–withgirlstendingtodisplaymoreegodevelopmentateachgrade,andthegapbeginning toclosebytheendofhighschool,roughlyattheageof18(Cohn1991).Thekeypointhereisthat priortotheageof18,someboysstilldisplayedpsychologicalimmaturity. Cohortanalysissupportsclaimsofgenderdifferencesinthedevelopmentofemotionalmaturity.While girlsarefoundtobemoreablethanboystocontrolbehaviouratages10and16,theytendtohave lowerself-esteemthroughoutadolescence,whichsuggeststhattheyaremorevulnerabletopeer influencesatthisage(Feinstein2000).Thebiggestgenderdifferenceisforthedevelopmentof ‘attentiveness’attheageoften,anageatwhichboysdoparticularlybadly:thismeanstheyaremuch lessablethangirlstotakeininformationandmemoriseit.

Evidencefromthephysicalsciences Thispsychologicalandsocialscienceresearchisbackedupbyresearchinthephysicalsciences. Neuroscienceshowsthatthepartsofthebrainthatareresponsibleforselfawareness,emotional control,moralunderstanding(rightandwrong)andaffectiveresponsiveness–reactingappropriately tosituationsandunderstandinghowtomanageoneself–istheprefrontalcortexinthefrontallobes (StussandAlexander2000).Thereisawideconsensusthatfrontallobedevelopmentisnotcomplete byage10(Gieddetal 1999).Infact,magneticresonanceimagery(MRI)scansofthebrainsofpostadolescentsrevealthatthefrontallobecontinuestomatureintoearlyadulthood.Thismeansthatthe capacityofthefrontallobetocontroltheexcessesoftheemotionalsystemisnotfullyoperational duringadolescence(Sowelletal 1999,Goldberg2001). Researchfurthershowsthatbytheageof12,theprefrontalcortexhassproutedmanymorecells thanarevisibleinchildren’sbrains,buttheseareimmatureandthin(Brizendine2006).Asaresultof theincreasednumberofcells,emotionalimpulsesfromtheamygdala(theemotionalcentreofthe brain)tothemotionalcontrolcentreoftheprefrontalcortexaremorerapidanddramatic.The underdevelopedprefrontalcortexisoftenunabletohandletheincreasedtrafficfromtheamygdala andbecomesoverwhelmed(ibid).Thisiswhattakesplacewhenteenagersactwithoutconsidering consequencesandbecomeresentfulofauthoritythattriestoheadofftheirimpulses. Ittakesseveralyearsfortheconnectionsbetweentheprefrontalcortexandamygdalatobecome structurallysound.Forthistohappen,asubstancecalledmyelinneedstocoatthecells.Thismaynot happentillthelateteens.Withoutthiscoating,whichallowsforquickerconnectionstobemadeto theprefrontalcortex,emotionalimpulsesoftenresultinimmediate,rawbehaviours(ibid)–andexcess emotionalimpulsesareregularoccurrencesinadolescentbrains. Psychologicalresearchalsofindsthathormonesurgesduringlaterchildhoodandadolescence (testosteroneinboysandoestrogeningirls)canaccountforviolentbehavioursandemotional responses(Brizendine2006).Thehormonesassociatedwithaggression,bothinmalesandfemales, arecalledandrogens.Theybegintoriseearlyinpubertyandcontinueuntiltheypeakatage19in femalesand21inmales.InastudyattheUniversityofUtah,levelsofaggressioninteenagegirls werefoundtobelinkedtolevelsoftheandrogenandrostenedione(ibid). So,underdevelopmentofthepartofthebrainresponsibleforbehaviourcontrol,plushormonal imbalancesthroughouttheteenageyears,canexplainwhyadolescentsaremorelikelythanadultsto

43

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

submittotheiremotionsandresorttohigh-riskbehaviour.Youngadolescents,forexamplethose undertheageof14,arebiologicallyandemotionallylessabletocontroltheirbehavioursand understandtheconsequences.

Implicationsforpolicy Thisresearchshouldnotbetakentosuggestthatadolescentsshouldnotbeexpectedtoconformto adultnormsofbehaviour,ortohaveadultunderstandingofwhatisacceptableandunacceptable. However,itdoessuggestthateffortstocurbyouthcrimeshouldaccountforadifferentandlessdevelopedcapacitytocontrolbehaviourinthefirstplace.Thisresearchraisesthequestionofwhether weshouldreinstatetherequirementofdoliincapax,inwhichtheprosecutioniscompelledtoprove thatachildundertheageof14wascapableofmakingamoraljudgementabouthisorherbehaviour. Italsosuggeststhatmeasures,suchasASBOs,whichrequiretheirrecipientstothinkrationally throughtheconsequencesoftheiractions(bothforthepeopletowhomtheybeing‘anti-social’and intermsoftheriskoffurtherpunishment)arelesslikelytobeeffectivewithyoungadolescents. Inthefollowingsectionweconsiderthefactorsinvolvedinchilddevelopment,inorderto demonstratewhereinterventionsaimingtopreventyouthoffendingcouldbestbedirectediftheyare tobeeffective.

44

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

6.Raisingchildren:theinfluenceoffamilialandsocialcontext Awidebodyofresearchsupportstherisk-factoranalysiscitedhere:thatyouthoffendingemerges fromparticularsocialcontexts.Inthissectionweexaminesomeofthisevidence.Oneofthemost importantriskorprotectivefactorsisparenting.Muchresearch–fromsocialscience,butalsofrom cognitiveandbehaviouraldisciplines–supportstheargumentthatfamilyplaysakeyroleinayoung person’ssocialdevelopment. First,weknowthatcertainsocioeconomicfactors,suchaswhetherachildreceivesfreeschoolmeals, livesinrentedorownedpropertyandwhethertheyliveinadeprivedneighbourhood,areall predictiveofoffending(HomeOffice2005)–probablybecausebotharealsoproxiesforlowincome. Bio-socialcriminologistshaveshownthatdeprivationimpactsindirectlyonbehaviourbyincreasing thestresslevelsoftheindividual.Robinson(2004)foundthattheabilitytocontrolbehaviour,while rootedinthefunctioningofthefrontallobe,isrelatedtolevelsofserotonininthebrain–whichare, inturn,affectedbyenvironmentalfactorssuchasdeprivation,stressandinstability.Hefoundthat thatlowself-controlisstronglyandinverselyrelatedtolevelsofserotonin,andthatlevelsweremuch lowerinindividualslivinginstressfulordisadvantagedsituations. Relatedbiologicalandneurologicaldisciplinesalsotendtosupportthethesisthatenvironmental factors(includingdeprivation)haveaseriousimpactonbehaviour.TheneurogeneticistProfessorLiz Gouldhasshown,usingmarmosetmonkeys,thatpovertycandamagethebrainbystuntingthe growthofneurons,asthebraindivertsenergytowardssurvivalratherthancreatingnewcellsand connections(Gouldetal 1998).Andexperimentswithrhesusmonkeyshaveshownthat‘peer-raised’ monkeyshavelowerlevelsofserotoninthanparentally-raisedmonkeys,andarethereforelessableto exertselfcontrol(Bennettetal 2002,Kraemeretal 1998). Wemustbecarefulabouthowweunderstandandusesuchresearch,butitdoessuggestthat disadvantageimpactsonbehaviournotonlyinobviousways,suchasbyincreasingtheopportunities andmotivationstooffend,butalsoviatheconsequentinstabilityandstressitcancauseandtheway inwhichthisimpactsonbraindevelopment(Gould1998,Margoetal 2006).

Parenting Increasingly,evidenceisemergingabouthowparentinginparticularimpactsonsocialandemotional development.Cohortanalystsshowsthatyoungpeoplewhohadstrong,supportivefamily relationshipsweremorelikelytodevelopgoodnon-cognitions,andresearchsuggeststhatthenature oftheinteractionbetweenparentsandchildismoreimportantthanstructuralfactorssuchasincome andparentaleducationinpredictingthedevelopmentofsocialandemotionalskills(Feinstein2000, Bynneretal 2002,Blandenetal 2004,Feinsteinetal 2005,Blanden2006). Specificparentingstylesareproventobeparticularlyimportantinpositivesocialandemotional development(Stanleyed2005,Waldfogel2006).Theseinclude:

• Consistencyinrulesandstyle •Warmthandinterest •Stabilityandsecurity •Authoritywithouthostility. Conversely,specificparentingstylesemergeasbeingnegativelyassociatedwithemotionalandsocial development(ibid).Theseinclude:

•Hostility •Usingphysicalviolence,suchassmacking •Lackofinterestanddisengagement •Inconsistency.

45

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Thisevidenceillustratesthemechanismsthroughwhichpoorparentingisasignificantriskfactorfor anti-socialandoffendingbehaviour.Table4.3showedthathavingparentswhohavecomeinto contactwiththepolice,parentswhodonotdiscourageyoungpeoplefromanti-socialbehaviour,or parentswhoareperceivedbychildrentohavepoorparentingstylesareallriskfactorsthatarehighly predictiveofoffendingbehaviour.Previousresearchalsoshowstheimpactofparentalhostilityand lackofdisciplineathomeinpredictingpooreremotionaldevelopment(Waldfogel2006). Awealthofresearchprovesthecausallinkbetweenhittingorsmackingchildrenandincreased aggressivebehaviour(Lyon2000).TheNottinghamResearchStudyoncorporalpunishment(Newson andNewson1972)foundthatthetwomostfrequentindicatorsforhavingacriminalrecordbefore theageof20werehavingbeenhitonceaweekormoreatage11,andhavingamotherstrongly committedtocorporalpunishmentatthatage.Unfortunatelycorporalpunishmentisnotoftenan indicatorusedinrisk-factoranalysisforoffending,soitisnotpossibletocomparethestrengthofits connectionwithbehaviourtootherknownriskfactors. Thereisalsoevidencethatlivinginpovertylimitstheabilitiesofparentstonurturechildreninways thatprotectthemfromtheriskfactorsforoffending.Ithasbeensuggestedthatlivinginpoverty damagesthementalhealthofparentswhichinturnrestrictstheirabilitytoshowwarmthandinterest intheirchildrenandtoprovideconsistent,supportivesupervision.Parentswhoarestrugglingtomake alivingarealsolesslikelytohavethetimetosuperviseandplaywiththeirchildren,orthemoneyto paysomeoneelsetodothiswell(Jamesand1995,WeatherburnandLind2001). Intherecommendationsofthisreport,wearguethatmuchcanbedonetosupportparents,via particularinterventionsandprogrammesaswellasmoregeneralreformstoimprovetheopportunities toworkflexiblyandbalanceworkwithchild-caringandchild-rearing.Buteffectingaculturechange tohowparentsinteractwithchildrenisalong-termanddifficultgoalinwhichpolicyplaysbutasmall part.Nonetheless,thereisaroleforlegislationevenbeyondtheareasofwork-lifebalanceandservice support. IntheUK,unlikeothercountries,wehavefallenshortoflegallybanningthesmackingofchildrenby parents–eventhoughpreviousworkhassuggestedthatmanyparentscanmisunderstandthe guidanceandtooeasilyfallintogenuinephysicalassault(Lyon2000).Itissurelymorallyconfusingto childrenthattheycannowbetriedforassaultforsmackinganadultatage10,butarenot themselveslegallyprotectedfrombeingsmackedbyaparentatthisage.Perhaps,asLyonargues, thisalsoneedstobelookedatwhenthinkingabouthowtoembedadultnormsofbehaviourorhow legislationcanacttochangecultureandbehaviour.Makingalegalcasetoprotectchildrenfrom abuseandsmackingbyparentswouldsendoutadifferentmessageabouthowweshouldtreatand viewchildren–animportantoneifweareindeedtomeaningfullyimprovethefamilyandsocial contextinwhichchildrendevelop.

Activitiesandsocialandemotionaldevelopment InTable4.2,wesawthathavinglittletodointhelocalareawaspredictiveofoffendingbehaviour. Otherresearchhasshownthatinvolvementincertainextra-curricularactivitiescanprotectagainstthe developmentofanti-socialoroffendingbehaviour–andthat,conversely,lackofparticipationin purposefulactivitiescanpredictoffendingoranti-socialbehaviour(Margoetal 2006).Consistentand regularparticipationinatleastoneextra-curricularactivityperweekcanreducethelikelihoodofdrug andalcoholproblems,aggression,anti-socialbehaviour,crimeorbecomingateenageparent.Thereis alsoplentyofevidencethatparticipationinextra-curricularactivitiesimproveseducationaloutcomes. Analysisbyipprofthe1970BritishCohortStudy(themostrecentlongitudinalstudyavailable)shows thatcertainextracurricularactivitiesarepositivelyassociatedwithdevelopingamoreinternallocusof control(thatis,believingeventstobemorewithinone’scontrol)(Margoetal 2006).Theseactivities musttakeplaceinagroupsetting,withaclearhierarchy,well-definedaims–inthatthegroupis workingtowardssomething,suchasafinalperformance–andmustrequireregularmeetings. Evenbearinginmindthedifferentcontextof1980sBritain(whenthiscohortwillhavereached childhoodandadolescence),thesefindingsarenonethelessintuitivelyattractivebecausetheyshift

46

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

focustowardsthekindsofpurposefulactivitiesthatthepublicsupportsforyoungpeople(listed below).Wecanunderstandthewayinwhichtheseactivitiesimpactpositivelyonyoungpeoplevia theopportunitiestogainsocialskillssuchascommunication,teamwork,patience,self-esteem, motivationandapplication.Theyalsoprovideopportunitiesforyoungpeopletoengagepositively withpeersinpurposefulactivity–again,positivepeerrelationsfeaturestronglyaspreventative factorsinyoungoffending(seeTable4.2). Activitiesthatcombinetheappropriatelevelofskillsacquisition,hierarchy,interactionwithadult authorityfiguresandconstructiveactivityinclude:

•Sport,dramaorartsbasedactivitiesatwhichattendanceisregularandconsistentandskillsare acquired

•Activitiesthatinvolveworkingtowardsalong-termgoalandinwhichskillsareacquired,suchas thoserunbytheScoutsAssociationorGirlguidingUK

•Cadettraining,suchasarmyorpolicecadetsor‘boys’brigades’,whichcombinebothofthe above. Activitiesthatareassociatedwithoffendinginclude:

•Regularunsupervisedsocialisingwithpeersindisadvantaged,high-crimeareas •Regularsocialisingwithanti-socialyoungpeoplewithoutsupervision. WeexaminetheseactivitiesinmoredetailinSection7.

Theroleoflocalcommunities Studiesthathavemeasuredtherelationshipbetweenindividualriskfactors,neighbourhood characteristicsandjuvenileoffendingshowthatchildrenandyoungpeoplewithhighriskfactorswere significantlymorelikelytoseriouslyoffendinthemostdisadvantagedneighbourhoods.Butinmore affluentneighbourhoods,predictionsoffuturecriminalbehaviourbasedonrisk-factorassessment– includingthestateofthefamilyandrelationswithparents–didnotmanifest(SmithandMcVie 2003,MacDonaldandMarsh2005,Sampsonetal 1997,Furlongetal 2003). Thisagainhighlightsthepowerofsocioeconomiccontext–thatis,area-baseddeprivation–in predictingachild’sfuturebehaviourandlifechances:anystrategyaimingtotargetyouthanti-social Figure6.1:Areas andgroupsat highriskof perceivinghigh anti-social behaviour Source:Wood (2005)

England and Wales average

16

Age 16 to 24

22

Unskilled household social grade

24

Black and Minority Ethnic groups

24

Living in a flat or maisonette

25

In very bad health (self defined)

28

Victims of crime in last year

29

Social rented sector

30

London region

24

10% of areas with highest propotion aged 10 to 24 years

27

10% of areas with lowest propotion couples with children

27

10% of areas with lowest proportion economically active

28

10% of areas with lowest proportion white

29

Hard pressed ACORN type

31

Low collective efficacy

33

Inner city

34 0

5

10

15

20 Percentage

25

30

35

40

47

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

behaviourmusttargetdisadvantagedcommunities.Butoneofthemostpowerfulriskorprotective factorsforanti-socialbehaviour,showninFigure6.1,isthelevelofcollectiveefficacyinalocalarea. ‘Collectiveefficacy’istheabilitytosocialisetheyoungandmaintainnormsofrespectforthelaw,and foroneanother(Sampson1999).Thefactorsthatmakeforcollectiveefficacy–densefriendship networks,communitysupervisionofteenagersandhighlevelsofcivicparticipation–makecollective efficacyaveryclosecousinof‘socialcapital’(Dixonetal 2006).Buttheconceptisamoreactionorientatedone,focusinginparticularonhowcommunitiesmobilisethemselvesfortheachievementof publicgoods(SampsonandGroves1989). AsFigure6.1(above)shows,lowcollectiveefficacyisoneofthemostaccuratepredictorsofhigh levelsofanti-socialbehaviourinEnglandandWales.Butthemostdetailedresearchhasbeencarried outintheUnitedStates.InastudyofChicagoneighbourhoods,mutualtrustandneighbourly altruismwereidentifiedaskeyfactorsinexplaininginter-neighbourhooddifferencesincrimerates. Communitiescharacterisedbyanonymityandlimitedacquaintance,unsupervisedteenagepeergroups andlowlevelsofcivicparticipationfacedanincreasedriskofcrimeandviolence(SampsonandLaub 1997,CoteandHealy2001). Thecentralideahereisnotthatcollectiveefficacymakesresidentsmorelikelytointerveneinserious crimes.Instead,itenhancestheirpreponderancetointerveneintheprecursorsofcrime–forexample, bydiscouragingthegatheringofteenagegangsordrugtaking(Halpern2001).Thusinterventions thatencouragecollectiveefficacyincommunitiesarelikelytoimpactpositivelyonyouthanti-social behaviour. Therearetwowaystounderstandhowthiswouldimpact:first,becauseresidentswouldbemore likelytointervenetomaintainlocalcivicorder,butalsobecausecollectiveefficacywithinacommunity hasbeenassociatedwithincreasesinauthoritativeparenting(Simonsetal 2005).Thismaybe becauselocalnetworksofparentstendtosetbehaviouralnormswithinacommunity,decidingwhat behaviourisappropriateandhowitshouldbedealtwith,andsupporteachotherindoingso(Jones 2005).Thiswillbeparticularlyimportantinareaswherethereisalowerratioofmentowomen,or wherethereisalargenumberofsingleyoungermothers,sotheratioofadultstoyoungpeopleis lower(Margoetal 2006).

Implicationsforpolicy Thekeyfindingfromthisresearchisthatyoungpeople’sbehaviourisstronglyinfluencedbytheir familialandsocialcontext.Inordertobeeffective,strategiestopreventoffendingmusttherefore targetnotjusttheindividualchild,buttheirsocialcontexttoo.Thiswillmeantacklingfamilyrisk factors,communityriskfactorsandpeer-groupriskfactors.Withoutdoingso,itisunlikelythatmuch impactwillbemadeonratesofyouthcrime. However,wemustagainacknowledgethelimitsoflegislationinaffectingculturechange.Wecannot expecttherealwaystobeapolicyleveravailabletochangepeople’sbehaviourindesirableways,and itmaybethatweneedtolookinotherdirectionsifwewanttochangethewaythatadultsinteract withchildreninthecommunity.

48

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

7.Whatworks?Proveneffectiveinterventions Inthissectionwedrawoninternationalevidenceofsuccessfulandunsuccessfulapproachestoyouth offending.Welookatinterventionsaimedatparenting,schools,communitiesandsituationalcrime prevention(includingASBOs),aimingtoroottheexplanationfortheefficacyofdifferentapproaches inthetheoryandresearchfindingsdetailedabove. Returningtoouroriginalmodelofcrimepreventionprogrammes,weconsiderinterventionsthat operateattwolevels:

• •

Primaryprevention –universalapproachesthataimtopreventcrimebeforeitoccurs Secondaryprevention –approachesthatfocusonindividualswhoareatthehighestriskof offending.

Drawingoninternationalevidence,wefindseveralapproachesthatareparticularlypromisingfor preventingoffending.Theseare:

•

Primaryprevention–parentingprogrammes,earlyinterventionincludingpre-schooland daycareprogrammes,after-schoolactivities.

•

Secondaryprevention –therapeuticinterventions,holisticfamilyinterventions.

Arangeofapproachesalsoemergeasbeingparticularlyineffectiveatpreventingyouthcrime.Theseare:

• • • • •

ASBOs Juvenilecurfews Probations Bootcamps ‘Scaredstraight’programmes.

Weexaminethelatterlistofinterventionsfirst,beforemovingontolookatwhatworks.

Ineffectiveinterventions Althoughtheyarecommonlyseenasmainlyaimedatyoungpeoplewhohavealreadycommitted crime,theinterventionsoutlinedbelowareoftenusedtodeterchildrenandyoungpeoplefromcrime. Weassesseachoneinturn,inthecontextofpreventingcrimeratherthandealingwithchildrenwho havealreadyoffended. Anti-SocialBehaviourOrders Anti-SocialBehaviourOrders(ASBOs)areakeypartofUKanti-social-behaviourlegislation.They targetyoungpeopleforlow-levelproblembehaviour–mostoftendisruptioninthelocalarea–which isnotdeemed‘criminal’. ASBOsarepartofatieredresponsetooffending,whichincludes,inthefollowingorder:

• Warningletters • Formalwarningletters • ReferraltoYouthInclusionProgrammes • ParentingContracts(voluntary) • AnAppropriateBehaviourContract(ABC)establishedwiththefamily’slandlordorthepolice • AParentingOrder(non-voluntary) • ACurfewOrder • Finally,anASBO. Althoughtheywereoriginallyintendedtobehandedouttochildrenandyoungpeopleonlyin

49

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

‘exceptionalcircumstances’,morethanhalfofallASBOshavebeenreceivedbychildren(HomeOffice 2005). Thisapproachhasbeencriticisedasa‘governmentallyorchestratedmoralpanic’(Pitts2005:25)that servestocriminalisebehaviourthatmightotherwisebeconsiderednormalteenagemisbehaviour. SomearguethatASBOsspeeduptheprocessofentrytothecriminaljusticesystem(seesection.8). DoASBOswork?Thereislittleevidencetosuggesttheydo,andsomeevidencethattheydonot workatall.Aswehaveseen,ratesofanti-socialbehaviourhavenotdeclinedinlightofthese measures.Whatismore,thebreachrateforASBOsimposedonunder-18sisaround55percent,of which46percentresultedinacustodialsentencein2004(NationalAuditOffice2007)–supporting theclaimthatASBOlegislationcanfast-trackyoungpeopleintothecriminaljusticesystem.Similarly, Table7.1showsthatthelessformalAppropriateBehaviourContracts(ABCs)werebreachedin37per centofcases.Thechildreninquestionweremostlyknowntosocialwelfare,educationalandcriminal justiceagencies,andweremainlyexcludedfromschool(BullockandJones,2004).. EvidencecitedearliersuggeststhatASBOsarenotsendingamessagetoyoungpeoplethattheir behaviourisinappropriate,rather,insomeofthemost-at-riskgroups,theyarebecomingasymbolof coolrebellion–a‘badgeofhonour’(EdwardsandHatch2004).ASBOsseemparticularlyunlikelyto workwithyoungadolescents,forexamplethoseunder14,whoareoftennotbiologicallyor emotionallydevelopedenoughtorespondtoitinthewaysthatareintendedbythecourts.Thereis somedebateastowhetherthedifferencesobservedintheadolescentbrainarebiological,orproducts ofaculturethatinfantilisesteenagers(Epstein2007).Theformerexplanationwouldsuggestthat teenagersarenotreadytorespondtoASBOs.Thelattersuggeststhatsomearelikelytodesirean ASBOasasignthattheyareleavingtheworldofchildren. Table7.1:Theproportionofpeoplewhodidanddidnotre-engageinanti-socialbehaviourfollowingthe threemostcommoninterventions Intervention Proportionnotengaging Proportionengaging Mediantimetofurtherantiinfurtheranti-social infurtheranti-social socialbehaviourforthose behaviour behaviour thatengagedinit Warningletter 63% 37% 73days AcceptableBehaviour 65% 35% 155days Contract Anti-SocialBehaviourOrder 45% 55% 296days Source:NationalAuditOffice(2007)

Thislackoffitbetweenourknowledgeofadolescentdevelopmentandthecurrentdeliveryof interventiontoadolescentsindicatestherootoftheproblemwithASBOs:theydonotintroduce properinterventionstotargettheneedsoftheyoungpersonortoaddressthecontextwithin whichthebehaviouroccurs–families,peergroupsandcommunities.Evidenceonrelated measureswhichrelyon‘tough’exclusions,warningsandpunishments,suggestsimilarproblems. Curfews Curfews–thenotionofbanningchildrenfromsocialisinginparticularplacesafteracertaintime– havebecomepopularintheUS,andfeaturedintheearlyyearsoftheBlairgovernment,whenthe PrimeMinisterrecommendedtheybeusedinsomeinnercityLondonareas.MostUScities operatesomeformofjuvenilecurfew,andmostofthembelievetheyareeffective(Bannisteretal 2001). Despitetheirapparentpopularity,thereisscantevidencethatcurfewswork.Adams(2003) reportedfromareviewofexperimentalstudiesthatjuvenilecurfewsshowednosignificanteffect inreducingcrime,andinsomecasesworsenedit.

50

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Scaredstraightprogrammes Theideabehind‘scaredstraight’isthatbyconfrontingteenagersatriskofcrimewiththerealityof thepunishmenttheymayface,theywillbeterrifiedanddeterredfrombreakingthelaw.IntheUS, childrenandteenagersaretakenintoprisonstomeetprisoners,andtheprogrammehasprovenvery popular.However,ithasbeenfarfromeffective.Indeed,studiessuggestthatscaredstraight programmesdomoreharmthangood,withsomeevidencethattheyactuallyincreasethechances thatparticipantswilloffend(Petrosinoetal 2003).TheanalysisbyPetrosinoandcolleaguesfound thatthescaredstraightprogrammestheyincludedintheirreview(whichwerethosethathadbeen mostrigorouslyevaluated)increased theoddsthatayoungpersonwouldoffendby70percent.For example,inastudyinNewJersey,41percentoftheyoungpeoplewhoparticipatedinthe programmewentontooffend,comparedwith11percentoftheyoungpeoplewhodidnot. Bootcamps Bootcampsaimtoofferdiscipline,structureandhierarchiesofrespectthatrespondtothelackof orderinayoungperson’slife.Theyoperatelikeaminiarmy–residentialinstitutionsinwhichthe youngpeopleareexpectedtoconformtorulesandintensemilitarystyle‘training’.Yettheevidence suggestsbootcampsdonotwork.Areviewofjuvenilejusticeinterventions(Baas2005)showedthat juvenilebootcamps(alongwithscaredstraightprogrammes)wereamongthefewmethodsto producenegativeoutcomes.Anearliersystematicreviewfoundthatsevenoutoftenevaluationsof bootcampsfoundthattheyincreasedthelikelihoodofparticipantsreoffending.Noneofthethree findingsofreductionsincrimewasstatisticallysignificant.Threeofthesevenfindingsofincreasesin crimewerestatisticallysignificant(Aos etal 2001). Punishingparents Theideathatparentsshouldbepunishedfortheactionsoftheirchildrengoesbackalongway,and wasincludedinBritishlawasearlyas1857(Arthur2005).Lawsenforcingparentalresponsibilityhave alsobeenusedintheUSforoveracentury(Harris2006).However,thereisverylittleevidenceto supporttheideathatpunishingparentspreventsyouthcrime.Thismaybebecausetheyareunlikely toaddressthecomplexsetofcausesofcrime.Theyriskdamagingchildrenbyincreasingthe harshnessandinconsistencyofparenting.Thisisaknownriskfactorforoffending.Itmaybe increasedwhereparentswhoarealreadyincapableofcontrollingtheirchildrenarepunished,asthey maytransferanyresultantangertotheirchildren. Wheretheselawsexist,theytendtobeveryrarelyused.Courts– whenfacedwithanactualcaseofa familythatisstrugglingtocontrolitschildren– seemlesswillingtoaddtofamilies’difficultieswith legislaturethatthinksofparentsintheabstract,withouttakingintoaccountthebackgroundsof poverty,neglectandabusethatmanyoftheseparentssharewiththeirchildren.Evenwhere punishmentofparentshasincreased,itappearstohavehadlittleimpact.Forexample,parentsinthe UKcanbepunishedforthefailureoftheirchildrentoattendschool.Ithasbeenreportedthat, despiteanincreaseinprosecutionsfrom985in2005to3,713in2007,therehasbeennodecreasein unauthorisedabsencesfromschool,whichactuallyincreasedinthatperiod(Andalo2008).

Effectiveinterventions Theineffectiveinterventionslistedintheprevioussectionhaveonethingincommon.Theyall respondtothedesiretoappeartoughonyouthcrime.Itseemsthattoughnessdoesnot necessarilyleadtoeffectiveness.Anti-socialbehaviourmaybetterbetargetedwithyouthwork, familytherapyandleisureinitiatives.Strategiesaimedattheschool,thefamilyandseekingto tacklepeerinfluencesandtochangetheleisureculturearedoubtlessmoreeffective,asweshall nowsee. Theinitiativesidentifiedbelowaredividedintotwocategories:primaryinterventions,whichseek toaddressthewidersocialandenvironmentalfactorslikelytocontributetoyouthcrime,and secondaryinterventions,whichcompriseparentingprogrammesorearlyinterventioninchildren consideredatriskofoffendinginlaterlife.

51

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Primaryprevention(earlyintervention) Researchsuggeststhatmanyoftheriskfactorsassociatedwithfamilybackgroundcanbeinfluenced byprovidingsupporttotheearlydevelopmentofchildrenandadolescents.Effectiveapproaches include:

• • • • • •

Prenatalcare Homevisitstoparentsofyoungchildren. Parentingtraining Provisionofgoodqualitychildcare/daycare Additionaleducationalsupport Programmestoinvolveparentsintheirchildren’seducation.

TheseapproachesareincludedinthreeprogrammesreviewedbyUttingandcolleagues(Uttingetal 2007):

• • •

Nurse-familypartnerships(currentlybeingpilotedintheUK) TheIncredibleYears PreventativeTreatmentProgramme.

Theseinitiatives,alongwithothersundertheumbrellasofchildcareandafter-schoolactivities,are describedandassessedinmoredetailbelow.

Nurse-familypartnerships(Uttingetal2007) Aims: Tohelpfirst-timemothersfromlow-incomebackgroundsachievethebeststartfortheirchildren bypreventinghealthandparentingproblemsthatcanleadtoanti-socialbehaviour.Theprogramme aimstoaddressthreemainriskfactors:

•

Behaviourwithnegativehealthimpactsbymothersduringpregnancysuchassmoking,drinking alcoholortakingillegaldrugs

• •

Childabuseandneglect Atroubledmaternallifecourse,includingrelianceonstatebenefitsandunintendedsubsequent pregnancies.

Thisistobeaccomplishedthroughintensivehomevisitingbynursesduringpregnancyandthefirst twoyearsofachild’slife. Impact:Alongitudinalstudyintotheeffectivenessofthisformofinterventionwascarriedoutin Elmira,asemi-ruralareainNewYorkState(Oldsetal,1986,1997,1998,2003citedbyUttingetal 2007).Participantswererecruitedwhilepregnant(before26weeksgestation)andfollowedupuntil theirchild’s15thbirthday.Childrenwhosemothershadbeentreatedwiththefullnurse-family partnershipprogrammehad60percentfewerinstancesofrunningaway,56percentfewerarrests,81 percentfewerconvictionsorviolationsofparoleand56percentfewerparent-reportedbehavioural problemsfromdrugandalcoholuse. Cost-benefitanalysis:Thenurse-familypartnershipprogrammeinElmirapaidforitselfincostsavings bythetimethechildhadreachedtheageoffour,duemainlytothereducedrelianceonwelfareby themotherandreductionsinthenumberofsubsequentpregnanciesforthoseintheprogramme. Savingshadexceededthecostoftheprogrammeby4:1bythetimethechildreached15,intermsof decreasedgovernmentassistance,anddecreasedexpenditureoneducation,healthandotherservices, andcriminaljusticesystemspending.Also,therewereincreasedtaxrevenuesasmothersweremore likelytobeinemployment.

TheIncredibleYearsproject Aims: Basedonextensiveresearch,theIncredibleYearsaimstopromotepositiveparentingand

52

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

educationapproachesthatincreasetheabilityofchildrentosolveproblemsandinteractsocially,and thatlessenaggressivetendencies.Aparent-centredprogrammeforthosewithchildrenaged2-7,it involves‘videotapemodelling’,inwhichgroupsofparentsviewvideosofchild-adultinteractionsand strategiesandthendiscusswhattheyhaveseeninthegroupsetting,withthegoalthatlessons learnedshouldbeusedintheirownparentingexperiences. Anadditional‘advanced’curriculumoffersparentstheopportunitytoconsidertheiradultrelationships andproblem-solvingskills,inordertofacilitateapositivefamilyatmosphereinwhichgoodparenting cantakeplace.Associatedprogrammesforparentsofolderchildrenandteachershavealsobeen developed. Staffing:Groupleadersarerecruitedfromvariousfamilyandhealth-relatedfields,suchaseducation, socialwork,nursing,andpsychology.Mosthavepost-graduatequalifications.Thereisalengthyand detailedtrainingprocessthatculminatesinaccreditation. Recruitment: IntheUK,familieshavebeenrecruitedprimarilythroughSureStartcentres.Services suchastransportandchildcareareoftenprovidedaspartoftheprogramme,inordertofacilitate attendance. Impact:Studieshavebeenconductedacrossabroadrangeofdemographicgroups,andhave identifiedthatthetechniquesareeffectiveinnumerouspopulations,includingdeprivedcommunities andthosethataredifficulttoaccess.Invariousevaluationsstudies,includingthosecarriedoutby independentevaluators,theIncredibleYearshasbeenshowntobeaseffectiveastreatmentof conduct-disorderedchildreninclinicalsettings.

PreventativeTreatmentProgramme(Uttingetal2007) Aims: AnoffshootofParentManagementTraining(PMT),thisprogrammeparticularlytargetsboys betweentheagesofsevenandninewhohaveproblemswithaggressionandhyperactivity,andis designedtofacilitatethereductionofthesesymptomsthroughacombinationofappliedPMTand anger-managementandsocial-skillstraining. Recruitment: Intheinitialpilot,subjectswerewhite,Canadian-bornmales,ages7-9,fromfamiliesin low-levelsocioeconomicgroups,whowereassessedashavinghighlevelsofdisruptivebehaviourin kindergarten.AfurtherstudywasconductedinMassachusettsforfive-year-oldswhohadbeen screenedforsymptomsofbehaviouralandemotionalproblems.ImplementationofPTPischallenging asthehighlevelofcommitmentrequiredbyparentsoftenleadstolowattendance. Impact:ChildrenwhoparticipatedinthekeyPTPstudieswereshowntohavereducedattention deficitsandaggression.Thebehaviourofthehighestpercentageofchildren(incontrasttoother treatmentprogrammes)wasbroughtintothenormalrange.APTPstudyintheUnitedStatescalled theFastTrackprogrammewasprovidedfor900childrenaged5-6whowereidentifiedasbeinginthe top10percentforanti-socialbehaviour.Afterthreeyearsofinvolvementintheprogramme participantswerelesslikelytoshowsignsofseriousconductproblems.Sixyearsafterintervention childrenthenaged13-14hadlowerratesofarrestthanthecontrolgroup(38percentcomparedwith 42percent)andconductdisorderswerereducedfrom27percentforthecontrolgroupto17per centintheexperimentgroup.

Childcare:PerryPre-SchoolProgramme FollowingresearchbyWelshandFarrington(2004)andothers,day-carecentreswithanenriched programmeforchildreninpre-schoolage,ledbyeducatorstrainedinpsychology,isconsidereda promisingearlyintervention.Themosteffectiveappearstobethewell-knownPerryPre-School programmedescribedbyAshcroftetal (2004)andSchweinhart(2004). Aims: toprovidehigh-qualityearlychildhoodeducationtochildrenfromlow-levelsocioeconomic backgroundstoaddresstherelationshipbetweenchildhoodpovertyandeducationalfailure.Thistwoyearinterventionlastsfor2.5hoursaday,fivedaysaweek,sevenmonthsayear.Itprovidescognitive stimulation,andteacheschildrentobeactiveandindependentlearners,increasingschoolreadiness

53

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

andenhancingacademicperformance. Impact: Anevaluationbasedontherandomassignmentof123African-Americaninfantstopreschoolandnon-pre-schoolgroupsbetween1962and1966demonstratedgreatersubsequentsuccess forthoseinthetreatmentgrouponeducational,criminologicalandeconomicoutcomes.Intermsof impactoneducation,65percentoftheparticipantgroupgraduatedfromhighschoolcomparedwith 45percentofthecontrolgroup.Apositiveimpactoncriminalbehaviourwasalsoevident:atage19, only31percentofparticipantshadbeenarrestedforacrime,comparedwith51percentofthe controlgroup.Atage27,thetreatmentgrouphadhadhalfasmanyarrestsasthecontrolgroup. Asustainedpositiveimpactoneconomicprosperitywasalsoapparent.Atage27,themedianannual incomeforparticipantswasUS$12,000,comparedwith$10,000forthecontrolgroup.Atage40,the differencewasgreater,withparticipantsearningamedianof$20,800comparedwith$15,300forthe controlgroup.Relatedtotheseearningdifferentials,homeownershipatage27wasalsohigher amongtheparticipants:27percentownershipcomparedwith5percentforthecontrolgroup. Cost-benefitanalysis: Bythetimetheparticipantshadreachedtheageof27,theprogrammehad providedasavingof$7forevery$1invested.Whenparticipantshadreachedage40,thissavingwas increasedto$17per$1invested.Thesavingsareduetoreductionsinspendingonwelfareassistance, specialeducation,criminaljusticeandcoststocrimevictims,andincreasedtaxrevenuesfrom participants’higherearnings.Themostsignificantsavingcomesfromcriminalcosts,with88percent ofsavingsattributedtothisarea.Thereisanotablegenderdivisionofsavings:93percentofsavings emanatefromtheperformanceofmales,whichcanberelatedtotheirexpectedhigherratesof criminaloffending.

After-schoolactivities Alargebodyofresearchshowsthatparticipationinextracurricularactivitiespromoteseducational attainment,includinglowratesofschoolfailureanddropout(MahoneyandCairns1997). Participationisassociatedwithheightenedschoolengagementandattendance,betteracademic performanceandinterpersonalcompetence,andhigheraspirationsforthefuture(Barberetal 2001, Mahoneyetal 2003). Otherworkalsoshowsthatparticipationinorganisedactivitiesisassociatedwithreducedproblem behaviouracrossadolescenceandintoyoungadulthood.Recentresearchshowsthatinvolvement reducesthelikelihoodofdrugandalcoholproblems(GrossmanandTierney1998),aggression,antisocialbehaviourandcrime(Mahoney2000),orofbecomingateenageparent(Allenetal 1997).A studyof695schoolpupilsinCaliforniawhowerefolloweduptoage24suggestedthatthosewho participatedinextra-curricularactivitieswerelesslikelytooffend,bothbeforeandaftertheschoolleavingage.However,thiseffectdependedonwhetherthepupil’ssocialnetworkalsoparticipatedin extra-curricularactivities,andonwhethertheseactivitiesprovidedstructuredactivitiesthatdeveloped skillsandattachmenttoconventionalvalues(Mahoney2000). Thesuccessofactivitiesinpreventingoffendingisexplainedbytheopportunitiespresentedtomix withbetter-behavedpeers,tobementoredbyadultactivityleaders,andthefactthatorganised activitiesrepresentaconventionalendeavourthatishighlyvalued,challengingandexciting(Larson 2000).Butinadditiontothis,playitselfisvitaltoyouthdevelopment.Bothpurposeandorder,and democratic,unstructuredplayareessentialtoyouthwell-being(Gill2007).Lackofeitheroneof thesecanbeseriouslydetrimental.Organisedactivitiescanprovideboth. Participationinorganisedactivitieshasalsobeenassociatedwithimprovedmentalhealthand personalskills,including:

•

Lowerlevelsofnegativeemotionssuchasdepressedmoodandanxietyduringadolescence (Barberetal 2001)

• •

Heightenedmotivationforlearningandself-efficacy(Mahoneyetal 2005) Thepromotionofinitiative–whichinvolvestheapplicationofextendedefforttoachievelongtermgoals(Larson2000,Larsonetal 2005)

54

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

•

Maintainingorincreasingself-esteemandsenseofidentity(Mahoneyetal 2005).

Someresearchhasalsoshownthatparticipationisrelatedtodevelopingacivic-mindedidentity (McIntoshetal 2005).Theopportunitiesforsocialrelationshipsandbelongingthatarisefromtaking partintheseactivitiesarethoughttoimpactonthesepsychosocialprocessestoo. Analysisofthe1970BritishCohortStudyhasshownthatcertainyouthactivities,suchassporting, uniformedandchurchactivities,wereassociatedwithpositiveadultoutcomesbyage30,controlling forotherrelevantfactorsincludingoutcomesuptoage10andsocioeconomicbackground,while attendanceatyouthclubswasfoundtopredictnegativeadultoutcomes(Feinsteinetal 2005,Margo etal 2006). Activitiesthatareeffectiveinimprovingbehaviourincludethose:

• •

inwhichparticipantsacquirenewskills(suchassport,art,drama,oranyotherskill)

• •

inwhichtheparticipantsworktowardsafinalperformanceorgoal

thatareregularlyattended,ortowhichregularattendanceisanexpectation,suchasfootball teamsthatholdregularpracticesessions

thataresupervisedbyadults.

Secondarypreventioninitiatives Programmesaimedatchildrenandteenagerswhoarealreadydisplayingaggressiveorcriminal behaviourcanoperateatthreelevels:

• • •

Attheindividual,targetedonpsychologicalproblems Atthefamilylevel,addressingtherelationshipswithinthefamilyandparenting Attheschoolorcommunitylevel,targetingpeerinfluencesorculturalinfluences

Previousworkhasidentifiedseveralprogrammesasbeingparticularlysuccessful:

Multisystemictherapy(MST) Primarilyusedamongadolescentsagedbetween12and17,MSTisdeliveredviasmallteamsof expertpractitioners.Itischaracterisedby:

• • • • • •

Aclearfocusonspecificandcurrentproblems(notbackwardslooking) Cleartreatmentplansandexpectationsofbehaviourandactivity Dailyorweeklyactivityormeetings,withregularprogressreviews Dailycontactwiththerapists Dedicatedtherapistswhoareavailabledayandnight,sevendaysaweek Atypicaltimelimitofthree-to-fivemonths.

PilotstudiesofmultisystemictherapyarenowunderwayintheUK.InNorway,arandomised-control trialofMST(OgdenandHagen2006)hasillustratedsustainedpositiveresultsfromthisformof intervention.Thestudyconsistedof75adolescentswithseriousbehaviouralproblems,whohadbeen referredtothemunicipalchildwelfareservicesinthreedifferentareas.Theywererandomlyassigned toatreatmentandcontrolgroup.ThetreatmentgroupreceivedMSTforanaverageof24weeks, whilethecontrolgroupweretreatedwithregularchildwelfareservices.Participantswereassessed beforetreatmentbeganandtwoyearsaftertheterminationoftreatment. Impacts: TheresultsoftheNorwaystudydemonstratedpositiveoutcomesforthosereceivingMST. Thetreatmentgroupscoredsignificantlyloweronmeasuresofbehaviouralproblemsandanti-social behaviourassessedusingdatareportedbytheindividualsthemselves,theirparentsandtheirteachers. Thelivingsituationoftreatedindividualswasimproved,withmoreofthosetreatedremainingliving withtheirfamiliesthanwasthecaseforthecontrolgroup.MSTwasfoundtobeparticularlyeffective amongboys.

55

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

ApreviousevaluationofMSTconductedinMissouriwith176juvenileoffendersshowedsimilarly positiveresults.Thesituationoftheparticipantswasfollowedupfouryearsafterparticipationinthe trial.ThosetreatedusingMSThadrecidivismratesof22percent,whileoffenderstreatedwith individualtherapyhadamuchhigherrateof72percentandthosewhorefusedtreatment87per cent.ThisclearlyshowsastrongpositiveeffectofMSTonreducingthelevelsofoffending.Afollowupinvestigationalmost14yearslatershowedthesustainedeffectsofMST.ThosetreatedwithMST had54percentfewerarrestsand57percentfewerdaysincustodythanthosetreatedwithindividual therapy(Borduinetal 1995). Cost-benefitanalysis: IntheUS,Sheidowandcolleagueshaveinvestigatedthecostbenefitsofusing MSTincomparisonwiththeusualmethodsoftreatmentforoffenders.Theirresultsshowthatduring thetreatmentperiodthereisanetcostsavingofUS$1,617peryouthtreatedwithMST.Thiswas measuredbycomparingtheMedicaidspendingontheyouthsinvolvedinarandomcontrolstudy, takingintoaccountallnecessarytreatmentcostsintheperiod.Inthe12monthsaftertreatmenthad finished,afurther$400peryouthwassavedforthosewhohadbeentreatedusingMST,butthis differencewasnotsignificant. GiventhemorepositiveresultsshowntoemanatefromMSTitseemsthatthisformoftreatmentis themosteconomicallyeffective(Sheidowetal 2004).Thecost-benefitanalysisdidnottakeinto accountfuturecoststhatmaybeincurredduetoreoffending,theratesofwhicharelowerforthose treatedwithMST.Thus,itislikelythatthecostsavingscouldbeevengreater.

ThePositiveParentingProgramme(‘TripleP’) Aims: TriplePisaformoffamilytherapythatseekstoenhancefamilyprotectivefactorsandreduce riskfactorsassociatedwithsevereemotional,developmentalandbehaviouralproblemsinchildren.It focuseson:

• Augmentingknowledge,skills,andconfidenceofparents • Promotingpositiverelationships • Promotingsocial,emotional,intellectualandlanguagedevelopment,andbehaviouralcompetencies inchildren. Developingparentalcapacityforself-regulationisacoretenet. Staffing: StaffingrequirementsreflecttheintensityoftheTriplePintervention.Whereasearlierlevels canbeimplementedbyhealthorparentingkeyworkers,ofteninassociationwithfamilydoctors, higherlevelsofinterventionrequiremorehighly-trainedwelfareworkersandalliedhealth professionals.Practitionersreceivelicencestopractiseaftertheyundergoastandardisedtraining course. Recruitment: Theprogrammeisdividedintofivelevels,inanattempttotargetfamilieswitha spectrumofsupportneeds.Themostbasiclevelincludesauniversal,population-widecampaign, whereasthemostintenselevel,whichincludeshomevisitsandanindividuallytailoredprogramme,is targetedtothefamilieswithgreatestneed. Impact: TriplePhasnotbeenthoroughlytestedinUKsettings,butextensivestudiesinAustraliahave demonstratedmarkedlypositiveimpact.Theseincludesignificantlyimprovedchildbehaviourand parentalcompetence.Parentsshowincreasedconfidenceinparentingability,reduceddependencyon potentiallyabusiveparentingpracticesanddemonstratereducedstressand/ordepressioninrelation totheirroleasparents.Childrenexperiencefewerproblems,getonbetterwiththeirpeersandbehave betteratschool.

Functionalfamilytherapy Functionalfamilytherapy(FFT)isalsoaimedatthefamilycontext.Itcombinesastrongtheoretical frameworkwithevidence-basedideasandclinicalexperienceandexpertise.Treatmentprogrammes arehighlyflexibleandresponsivetotheindividual.Skilledtherapistsworkwithfamiliestoimprove parentingskillsandrelationshipswiththeschoolandcommunity.

56

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Theprogrammeaimsnotonlytoaddressanindividualyoungperson,buttoworkwithotherfamily memberswhomayalsobeatriskofcrime,forinstanceyoungersiblings.Itisgenerallyusedforthose betweentheagesof11and18andisshortterm–lastingonaverageeightto12sessionsspread overthreemonths–butmayincludefollow-upsuchasphonecallsandmeetingsformoreextreme cases.SeveralevaluationsintheUShaveshownittobemoreeffective(andcost-effective)than sendingyoungoffenderstoprisonorresidentialtreatment(Aosetal2001).Thestudiesalsosuggest thatFFTsucceedsinreducingtheoffendingofsiblingsofthetargetedyoungpeopleandoffendingin adulthood.Forexample,onestudyshowedthat9percentofagroupofyoungpeoplewhowent throughFFToffendedasadults,comparedwith41percentofamatchedgroupofyoungpeoplewho wereonlygivenprobation(Gordonetal 1995).

Schoolinterventions Manyoftheprogrammesthathavebeenusedinschooltoreduceviolenceanddelinquencyhave failedtoshowpositiveeffects.ButareviewintheUSfoundsevenexamplesofeffectivepracticefor youngpeoplewhowereatriskofoffending(Molina2005).Theywere:attributionalretraining,social skillstraining,cognitivebehaviouraltherapy,peercopingskills,andacombinationofchild,parent, andteachertraining.Theseprogrammessharedafocusondevelopingthesocialandcognitiveskillsof youngpeople,ratherthansimplyinformingorwarningthemofthedangersofdelinquency. Therapeuticfostercare Someyoungpeoplefacesuchsevereproblemsintheirfamilythattheyhavetotakenawayfortheir ownprotection.Inmanycases,theyareplacedinchildren’shomes.Suchplacementisaknownrisk factorforfutureoffendingandotherharms(forexample,pooreducationalperformance,drugmisuse, homelessness).Analternativeisfostercare,orplacementwithfamiliesinthecommunity.An additionalsupporttotheseplacementscanbeprovidedintheformoftherapeutictrainingand supporttothefostercarers. Evaluationsofsuchtherapeuticfostercarehaveshownthatitcanbeeffectiveinreducingtheriskof youthoffending,especiallyinadolescentswithahistoryofdelinquency(Hahnetal 2004).Thesame reviewsuggeststhatitisnotparticularlyeffectivewithyoungerchildrenwhoshowsignsofemotional disturbance. Incontrasttotheineffectiveinterventionslistedabove,theeffectiveinterventionsdescribedheredo notstrivetobe‘tough’onyoungpeople.Rather,theyfollowresearch-basedrecommendationsto focusondynamic,‘criminogenicneeds’(Bonta1997).Criminogenicneedsarethoseattributesof youngoffendersthatarerelatedtotheiroffending(forexample,impulsivity,lowselfcontrol,poor educationalperformanceandparentalrelationships,butnotlowself-esteem,whichisnot criminogenic).Dynamicneedsarethosethatareassociatedwithoffending,andareopentobeing changed,asopposedtostaticcriminogenicfactors,suchasageorgender(AndrewsandBonta2003, LaytonMacKenzie2006). Theseapproachesprovideyoungpeoplewithaconsistentframework,withclearrulesand expectations(butnotharshpunishments)inwaysthathelpthemtoresolvetheproblemsthat underlietheiroffending. Thedifferencesineffectsbetweenyoungerandolderchildrenfortherapeuticfostercaredraw attentiontothepossibilityofdifferenteffectsfordifferentgroupsofyoungpeople.Differencesin age,gender,needandethnicitymayaffecttheeffectivenessofinterventions,sodifferentialeffects shouldbecarefullyreviewedwhendecidingoninterventionstoimplementintheUKcontext.

Implicationsforpolicy Thesefindingshaveclearimplicationsforgovernmentpolicy:punitivemeasuresaresimplyfarless effectiveatpreventingyouthoffendingthanaretherapeuticandfamily-basedinitiatives. However,thereisonereasonwhytheUKgovernmenthasbeenreluctanttoemphasisetherapeutic interventionsoverthemorepunitiveASBOlegislation:publicattitudes.TheGovernmenthastended

57

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

tobelievethatthepublicdemandsmoreserious,punitivemeasures–or,conversely,thattheywould viewamoreinterventionistagendaasnanny-statism.However,thisclaimneedstobeupdated.Aswe sawinSection2,publicattitudesare,infact,notasstraightforwardlypejorativeasoftenclaimed. Sowhataretheimplicationsofthoseresearchfindingsforpolicy?Publicattitudestowardscrimeare notimmutablyauthoritarian.Peopleinterpretthebehaviourofyoungpeopleinpublicspacesas signifyingthestrengthofthesocialorder,butthisbehaviouritselfisclearlyamenabletopolicy intervention.Theyalsodiscriminatebetweentypesofcrimeandthevaluesandintereststhatthese breach,andaccountforthemotivations,intentionsandmoralpostureofoffendersinparticularby recognisingthat‘drugaddictsdonotbehaverationally’.Theybecomemoreliberalintheirorientations whensuppliedwithinformationfromprofessionalsratherthanthemedia,andwhentheyhave personalinvolvementincaseresolutioninthecriminaljusticesystems.Buttheystandfirmonbasic socialnormsandreactharshlytohigh-profileandwhattheyperceiveasrepugnantbreachesofthose norms. Aprogressivepolicyagendaforcrimereductioncanthereforefindmooringsinpublicattitudes,even thoughthetaskisadifficultandcomplexone.Opportunitiestoshapeaprogressiveconsensuson youthoffending,andtoleadpublicattitudesinnewdirections,clearlyexistinanumberofvery specificareas.Forexample,thepublicsupportstheideaofintroducingmoredisciplinetoyoung people’slives,andsuchsentimentsgowiththegrainofresearchfindings.Asthisreporthas demonstrated,youngpeoplewhoexperiencestructure,disciplineandhierarchyintheirsocialand familylivesaremuchlesslikelytobecomeanti-socialyoungadultsandtosubsequentlyoffend,and lackofdisciplineinearlyandmidchildhoodisstronglypredictiveofanti-socialbehaviourinchildhood andadolescenceandoffendinginadulthood(Margoetal 2006). Thereisalsoastrongsensethatchildrendeserveafairchance.Peopleregularlycomplainthatthereis notenoughforchildrentodointheirlocalarea,andworryaboutthecapacityofschoolsandother children’sservicestodotheirbestbytheyoungergeneration(ibid).Thecurrentyouthjusticesystem doeschimewiththemorepunitivesideofpublicattitudes,buttodismisstheother,moreprogressive side,wouldbedisingenuous. Politicianshaveachoiceabouthowtheypresentpoliciesandagendastothepublic.Academicssuch asGeorgeLakoffandIanShapirohaveillustratedthecapacityofpoliticianstoframepolicyideasin waysthatcanbe‘sold’toascepticalpublic(Lewis2007).Inthisregard,reformstoextendthe provisionofstructuredactivitiesandsupervisedpublicspaceforyoungpeople,andtotackleissuesof pooryouthsocialisationviafamily-basedinterventions,offerpotentiallyfertilegroundforchanging thepublicdiscourseonyouthcrimeintheUK.

58

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

8.Recommendations AccordingtotheYouthJusticeBoard,intheUKwespend11timesmoreonlockingupouryoung peopleaswedoonpreventionprojectstostopthemgettinginvolvedincrimeinthefirstplace. Rectifyingthisanomalyiskeytoaprogressiveagendaonyouthcrime. ThenewgovernmentunderGordonBrownhasalreadyindicateditsintentiontomovewellbeyonda punitiveagendaonyouthoffendingtoonethatbetterreflectstheaimsofEveryChildMattersand YouthMatters.MovingtheRespectunitandresponsibilityforyouthoffendingfromtheHomeOffice tothenewDepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilieswasasignificantsteptowardsthis,aswas theChildren’sPlan(DCSF2007)andtheongoingYouthOffendingProject(PMSU/HomeOffice). Yettheemphasisofourcrimepreventionstrategyisstillfirmlyinthe‘justice’camp,andwestilllacka coordinated,properlytargetedbutnationalserviceforchildrenatriskofcrime–particularlyforthose ofprimaryschoolage.Meanwhile,provisionofappropriatesocialisingactivitiesforteenagersispoor inmanydisadvantagedareas.Inaddition,anumberofgapsincurrentprovisionemergewhenitis examinedinthecontextoftheaboveresearchfindings.Thismustberectifiedaspartofaholistic primarypreventionstrategytopreventyouthcrime. Furthermore,updatingandimprovingtheinfrastructureandlegislationaroundanti-socialbehaviour andpreventionwouldbethelogicalsteptobetterreflectingtheevidenceonhowbesttoprevent offending.

Theneedforanewapproach Amorebalancedpublic-policyresponsetoconcernsaboutyouthoffendingdoesnotmeanignoring behaviourthatcontravenessocialnorms–farfromit.Butitdoesmeanviewingoffendingandantisocialbehaviourdifferently–asbehaviourthatneedstobereformedanddealtwithmeaningfullyand incontext:notmerelypunishedintheshorttermandthenforgottenabout. Theresearchconsideredinthisreportsuggestsseveralproblemswiththecurrentapproachto preventingoffending.Oneofthemostimportantproblemsisthelevelatwhichweintervene.While targetingisessential,thereisnotenoughbeingdoneattheprimaryleveltotacklethebroadercauses ofoffending.However,therecommendationsbelowarenecessarilyincomplete:theyaimtoimprove theopportunitiesandsupportsavailabletotheprimarysocialisinginstitutionsoffamily,community, school.Butultimately,muchofwhatneedstohappenrestsonpublicbehaviour–andthecapacityfor legislationtochangethisislimited. Norshouldwealwayslooktolegislationorprofessionalstosolveproblemsthatmayresultfromsocial change.Forexample,thesolutiontofamiliesspendinglesstimetogetherthanseveraldecadesagois notto‘replace’parentingwithprofessionalchildcareandsoon:manypolicyleversareavailableto helpparentsspendmoretimewithchildrenwithoutlosingoutontheopportunitiesofworkand leisureinmodernBritain.(SeeHughesandCook2007,DixonandMargo2006andMargoetal 2006 formoredetail.) Onceanindividualisdisplayingriskfactors,orhascommittedananti-socialact,thenatureofthe interventionneedstobedirectedatpreventingthatbehaviourfrombeingrepeated,ratherthanon emptypunishments.Punishmentisanimportantcomponentofourcriminaljusticesystem,but effectivelydivertingyoungpeoplefromcrimeisjustasimportant.Ordersandsanctionsmustalways beaccompaniedbyaformoftherapeuticorpurposefulactivityiftheyaretobeeffectiveatcrime prevention.Thiswillalsosendthemessagetothepublicthatthebehaviourisbeingdealtwithina meaningfulway. Strengtheningoursecondary-levelinterventionsisvitalforanotherreasontoo:thisreporthasnot consideredinanydetailtheproblemofcrimecommittedbynewcomerswhowouldnothavebeen abletoaccesstheprimarysocialisinginstitutionsweexaminesimplybecausetheywerenotlivingin theUKpreviously.Whilethesolutiontotheproblemsfacedbytheseindividualsneedstobelookedat

59

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

aspartofanotherindependentstudy,theprimesolutionwillbetolookatstrengtheningthe programmesofferedatthesecondary,laterinterventionstageandensuringlaterinterventionsare moreeffective. Therecommendationsbelowaredividedintoprimaryandsecondaryformsofprevention.

Primaryprevention 1.Tacklingchildpovertyandin-workpoverty Theconnectionbetweenpovertyandcriminalityremindsusagainoftheimportanceoftacklingchild poverty.Recommendationsonhowthisagendashouldmoveforward,particularlyintermsoftackling in-workpoverty,areadvancedinotherworkbyippr(seeCookeandLawton2007).Theseinclude:

• • • •

Reformstotheminimumwage Improvementstoworkincentives–throughapersonalTaxCreditAllowance Renewingtrustinthetax-creditsystemthrougha‘noclaw-backs’rule,andbywritingoff overpaymentstolow-incomefamilies Increasingsupporttolow-incomeworkingfamilies.

2.Bettersupportforfamilies:towardsaworker/carermodel Keytorespondinginaprogressivewaytosocialchangewillbestrategiestobettersupportfamiliesto spendtimewithchildrenandteenagers.Toooften,thereisadiscerniblyfatalisticapproachtosocial change–asensethatwewillneverreturntothe1950s‘goldenage’ofnuclearfamiliesandstay-athomemothers.Thisnotionistrue,andasitshouldbe. Butwearecertainlynotheadingintomoralandsocialdecline.Thereareahugenumberofreforms andpoliciesthatcanhelpusmoveasasocietytowardsanothergoldenage–ofthe‘worker/carer’ society.Thisdoesnotmean‘professionalising-out’childhood,assomehaveclaimed–weshouldnot aimtoreplaceparentingwithprofessionalchildcareservicesandlooktoprogrammesandservicesto repairthejobofpoorparenting.Whatitdoesmeanisfindingwaystoprovidetherightbalanceof supportandservicetofamiliessothattheyinturnmaybalancetheirworkingandcaring responsibilitiesmoreeffectively. Therangeofreformstosupportbetterwork-lifebalanceforparentsandfamiliespreviouslyidentified byippr(seeHughesandCooke2007,DixonandMargo2006andStanley2005)shouldbeacted upon.Theseinclude:

• • •

Betterchildcareprovision Bettersupportfor,andgreateravailabilityof,flexibleworkingforparentsofolderchildren Betterparentalleavepackages–particularly,betterpaternityleavetoensurethatfathersare abletoundertakepropercaringrolesinfamilies.

Theseissueshavebeencoveredthoroughlyelsewherebyippr.Therecommendationsbelowfocus onareasinwhichnewinitiativesareneeded. 3.Protectingchildren:banningcorporalpunishment TheGovernmenthaspreviouslyruledoutmovingfurthertowardsthebanningofphysicalpunishment byparents.Butitshouldreconsideritspositioninlightoftheevidencepresentedinthisreport,as wellasformoralreasons.Theevidencefrommorethan40yearsofresearchisthathittingchildren increasesthechancesofaggression,anti-socialandcriminalbehaviour.Recentstudieshave demonstratedbeyonddoubtthecausalrelationshipbetweenphysicalpunishmentandincreased aggressivebehaviour(Lyons2000). Parentsshouldbebannedfromanyformofphysicalpunishmentofchildren.Thiswouldnotonly reducecriminalityinthelongterm,butwouldalsosendouttherightmessageaboutthekindof societywewanttobe–oneinwhichviolenceandphysicalabusearenottolerated–andalsosends

60

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

themessagetochildrenthattheywillbetreatedasweexpectthemtotreatothers,andthatthelaw istheretoprotectthemaswellastoenforcenormsofbehaviour. 4.Betterprovisionofactivitiesfor12-to18-year-olds Involvementinextra-curricularactivitiescanprotectagainstoffending,butinthepast disadvantagedyoungpeoplehavebeenlesslikelythantheirmoreadvantagedcounterpartsto accessstructuredactivities.Cohortanalysisshowsthatyoungpeoplefromdisadvantaged backgrounds,orwhohadhighriskfactorsforpoorattainmentlaterinlife,weremuchmorelikely toattendunstructuredactivitiessuchasyouthclubs(Feinsteinetal 2005,Stattinetal 2005), andmuchlesslikelytoattendstructuredactivities.Thisislikelytobepartlyduetothe availabilityofsuchactivitiesindisadvantagedareas.

Additionalbackground Thereareconcernsthatprovisionatanationallevelistoolowtomeetdemand.Nationally,there arearound950,000placesavailableintheGirlGuidesandScouts.TotaketheGirlGuidegroups asanexample,although14percentofsix-year-oldsattendRainbows,25percentofeight-yearoldsattendBrowniesand10percentof11-year-oldsattendGuides,therearestill50,000girls onthenationalwaitinglist–oneforeverytenexistingmembers.However,althoughthereis currentlynosocioeconomicbreakdownofthesefigures,anecdotalevidencesuggestsitis overwhelminglythemostaffluentyoungpeoplewhoaretakinguptheseplaces,whichis unsurprisingconsideringtheearlierfindingsfromcohortanalysis. TheCadetsisanorganisationthatisoftenassociatedwithnegativeaspectsofmilitarismand hierarchy,butitalsooffersyoungpeopleimportantdevelopmentalactivitiesandexperiences, suchascamping,buildingandmakingstructures,learningnewskills,andworkingwithadult mentors.However,thereareonly88,000cadetsaltogetherintheSeaCadetCorps,ArmyCadet ForceandtheAirTrainingCorps,inaround3,000unitsbasedwithinlocalcommunities. Inaddition,thereare40,000childrenintheCombinedCadetForce(CCF).Thisisbasedin schools,butofthe253CCFunitsonly52areinstateschools(althoughtheGovernmentis pilotingprovisioninfivemorestateschools,andislookingtopilotaprojectinaScottishschool soon).Sothevastmajorityofthe£80million-a-yearMinistryofDefencefundingfortheCCF goestofundingprovisionforyoungpeopleinindependentschools,whotendoverwhelminglyto bebetteroffthanotheryoungpeopleandtosufferfarfewerriskfactorsthanotheryoung people.ThislevelofexpenditureisequaltomorethanhalfofwhatisspentontheChildren’s Fundeachyear(Hansard2007),highlightingadisjunctbetweenthedesiretoprovideactivities forthemostdisadvantagedandtherealityofprovision. AlookattheschoolschosenfortheCCFpilotprojectsetupbytheMinistryorDefencein2007 suggeststhatthepilotshavenottargetedprovisionatthemost-at-riskyoungpeople.The percentageofpupilsreceivingfreeschoolmealsisagoodindicationofthelevelofdisadvantage inaschool.Table8.1listspercentagesoffreeschoolmealsintheschoolschosenforpilotCCF projects.

Table8.1:SchoolschosenforpilotCCFprojects School

Pupilsreceivingfreeschoolmeals

ArchersCourtSpecialistMathsandComputingCollege,Dover

25%

BudmouthTechnologyCollege,Weymouth

22%

Deacon’sSchool—SpecialistTechnologyCollege,Peterborough

22.8%

Haberdashers’Aske’sFederationofHatchamCollegeandKnightsAcademy,London

18%

TreorchyComprehensiveSchool,Treorchy,MidGlamorgan

21%

UKaverage

21%

Note:StatisticsaccurateasofMay2007.Source:Ofsted–variousreports

61

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Itisimmediatelyapparentthattheseselectedschoolsareaboutaverageintermsofthe socioeconomicbackgroundoftheirstudents,whilethelevelinareassuchasthedeprived LondonboroughofTowerHamletsis53.9cent.Reachingthemostdisadvantagedandat-risk youngpeoplewouldclearlyrequiretargetingthoseschoolswiththehighestnumberofpupilson freeschoolmealsfirst. Intermsofprovisionincommunities,under-provisionindeprivedareasmaybeparticularlymarked. Asanindicationofprovision,weinvestigatedthenumberofScoutsandArmyCadetsorganisations inareasofparticulardeprivation.Aston,inBirmingham,hasonlyoneScoutbrigade,with20 members,andonecadetunitwith26cadets–inanareawithanoverallpopulationofalmost 27,000(including5,8195-to16-year-olds).Possilpark,Glasgow,similarlyhasnoscoutsbrigades andonlytwocadetunits,with30cadetseach,despitehavinganoverallpopulationof5,300. Inmanywaysthisunder-provisionisunsurprising,astheseorganisationsdependonthewillingness ofadultstocomeforwardasvolunteers.Thisitselfwillberelatedtolevelsofcollectiveefficacyin thecommunity,whichtendtobelowerindisadvantagedareas(Margoetal 2007).Thisis unfortunatebecauseitisthechildrenlivingintheseareasforwhomparticipationinpurposeful activitiesissoimportant.

Policyrecommendations Extra-curricularactivitiesforallyoungpeopleshouldbeprovidedineverylocalarea,withfunding sourcesforstructuredextra-curricularactivitiesconsolidatedintoonefund.Moreover,whilethe CombinedCadetForcesisfarfromtheonlyorganisationofferingpurposefulactivitiestoyoung people,itismorallywrongthatthemajorityoflimitedresourcecurrentlygoestomoreadvantaged youngpeople.The£80millionthattheMinistryofDefencespendseachyearontheCombined CadetForces,mainlyinindependentschools,shouldeitherbedivertedtofundingCCFunitsin schoolsindeprivedareas,orcontinuetofundonlythoseCCFunitsinindependentschoolsthat attractaminimumamountofattendance(say50percent)bychildrenatstateschoolsindeprived areas. Providersofstructuredextra-curricularactivitiesindeprivedareasshouldbeabletoapplytothis consolidatedfundinordertoimproveandincreaseprovisionintheseareas.Butinordertohavean impactonoutcomes,theseactivitieswouldneedtohavethecharacteristicsthatweknoware importantinimprovingemotionalandsocialdevelopmentinyoungpeople.Inotherwords,they needtobepurposeful,withopportunitiesforprogressionandtotakeonmoreresponsibility, provideconsistencyandberegularlyattended. Theevidencecitedwithinthisreportisthatchildrendevelopmorallyandsociallyviaengagementin democraticallystructuredplayandactivity,buttheyalsoneedopportunitiestoprogress,andto understandandengageinpurposefulactivitiesthatencourageprogression.Activitieswould thereforeneedtobeaccreditedasfulfillingaminimumnumberofsetcriteria. Activitiesthatshouldbeencouragedinclude:

• Sportingactivitiessuchasfootballclubs • Artanddrama-basedactivitiesthatincludea‘finalshow’orperformance(sothattheyaregoalorientated)

• GirlguidingUK,ScoutAssociation,cadetgroupsandWoodcraftFolk(asthesearegoalorientated andprovideskills-basedlearningopportunities)

• Otherdemocraticallystructuredbutpurposefulactivities. 5.Supervisedplayareasforchildren(under-12s) Provisionofpurposefulactivitiesisimportant,butsoisplay,asthisreporthasnotedatseveral points,sooutdoorspacesmustbeprovidedforprimaryschoolagedchildrentoplayfreelyand safelywithfriends.

62

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Additionalbackground ResearchshowsthatintheUK16percentofhouseholdsareinpoor-qualityenvironments(PMSU/ DCSF2007).Manyareas–particularlythemostdisadvantaged–sufferfromtrafficproblemsand dangerousroads,andadultsintheUKarelesswillingtosuperviseotherpeople’schildreninthelocal area(Margoetal 2006).Inaddition,therearefewerthan100staffedadventureplaygroundsinthe UK,andlocalbudgetsforplayservicesarelowornon-existent(PMSU/DCSF2007). Thecombinationofthesetrendshasbeenthatyoungpeoplespendlesstimeplayinginsupervised areasthanelsewhereinEurope(Gill2007).Meanwhile,75percentofparentsbelievethattheir childrennowfaceincreasedrisksandarereluctanttoallowthemtoplayunsupervisedoutside(Gill 2007). Additionally,asTable4.2shows,thereisacorrelationbetweenoffendingbehaviourandcomplaintsof littletodointhelocalarea.Youngpeopleneedmoreopportunitiestoengagepositivelyinsupervised activitiesthatarepurposefulandfuninthelocalarea.Doingsonotonlyincreasestheirsocial, emotionalandbehaviouralskills,butgivesthemasenseofownershipoverthelocalarea,andteaches themtoengagepositivelywithpublicspace–forexample,respectingpublicpropertyandtherights ofothers(Gill2007,Margoetal 2006).Meanwhile,theincreasedvisibilityofyoungpeopleplaying andinteractingpositivelyisthoughttohelpsoothepublicconcernsaboutyouthbehaviour(ibid)and tohelpgeneratemorecollectiveefficacyandpositiverelationshipsbetweenyoungpeopleandthe adultsaroundthem.

Recommendations Theaimshouldbeforthesesupervisedplayareastobeofferedineverylocalarea.Butinthefirst instance,theyshouldbetargetedatdisadvantagedurbanareaswhereneedisgreatestandwhere thereisnotalreadyactivevoluntary-sectororlocal-areaprovision.Researchshowsthatchildrenand youngpeopleconsistentlycomplainabouthavinglittletodointheirlocalarea(Margoetal 2006), andthatthepublicwouldsupportsuchmeasures(Gill2007). AssetoutintheChildren’sPlan,theGovernmentshouldinvestinanewprogrammeofsupervised playareasindisadvantagedurbanareas.Thesewouldbestaffedadventureplayparks,integratedwith structuredactivity(forexample,inparksoutsideChildren’sCentresandtheproposednewprogramme ofyouthcentres[knownasYouthHubs])andwouldrequirethefollowingsteps:

• Rollingouta‘PlayRanger’programme,startingindisadvantagedareas • IntegratingsecureplaysitesintoYouthHubdesignandplanning • Staffingadventureplaygroundsindisadvantagedareas • Settingupaworkforcedevelopmentprogrammefortheplaysector,withrecruitmentfocusedon localadults

• Providingsubsidisedaccesstoindoorplayareasforyoungpeoplefromdisadvantagedbackgrounds. Inordertoensurethatchildrencanplaysafelyoutsideininner-cityareas,furtherplansshouldbe madetotackletrafficsafetyissuesinurbanareasandtoensurethattown-planningdecisionsare madewithchildrenandyoungpeopleinmind. 6.Supportingcollectiveefficacy Whilethepreviousrecommendationisimportantinlayingthefoundationsformorepositive interactionbetweenadultsandchildren,furtherchallengesremaininsupportingcommunitiesto developcollectiveefficacy.Thisinvolvesencouragingadultsinthelocalcommunitytocometogether todecideonnormsofbehaviour,andtobewillingtoenforcethem.

Additionalbackground Researchconsistentlyshowsthattheroleofthewidercommunityandotheradultsinsocialising youngpeopleisvitaltotheirbehaviourandwell-being.Therehasbeenarangeofrecentipprresearch

63

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

inthisarea(Rogers2005,Dixonetal 2006,Keaney2006,KeaneyandRogers2006,KhanandMuir 2006).Thesereportsallagreethatwhereadultsarewillingandabletoactivelyparticipatein maintainingorderandacceptablebehaviourintheircommunities,children’sbehaviourbenefits hugely.Parentingisalsoimprovedwhenlocalnetworksofparentscanagreeonwhatbehavioursare acceptable,asshowninMargoetal 2006,andresearchersbelievethistobeduetotheconfidence thatindividualparentscangainfromthesupportofotheradultsinthecommunityandthewayin whichyoungpeoplethenperceivemessagesfromanoldergeneration–asbeingmessages,rather thanunreasonableexpectationsoftheirownparents. Buttheroleofpolicyinenablingthedevelopmentofcollectiveefficacyisacomplexone.Hereagain, itisclearthatpolicycannotsimplyforcelocalculturetochange,butcanonlyfacilitateit.

Recommendations First,inlinewiththefindingsreportedherethatcollectiveefficacyflourisheswhenpublicspaceis well-maintained,thereareseveralwaysinwhichchangescouldbemadetoplanningandregulation policywhichwouldhelptosupportarichervarietyofpublicspacesandplaceswherepeoplecan meet.Themostimportantideasincludethefollowing:

• Localauthoritiesshouldconductregularauditsof‘congregationalspaces’ineachneighbourhood, todeterminehowmuchsuchspaceisavailableandwhatconditionitisin.Thisinformationcould thenbeusedtoinformplanningdecisionsorpublic-spendingdecisions.

• TheCommissionforArchitectureandtheBuiltEnvironment(CABE)shouldawardandmonitoran ‘InvestorinCommunity’badgetoencouragecommercialdeveloperstopursuedesignpoliciesthat fullyreflecttheprinciplesofsustainabledevelopment,byintegratingeconomic,socialand environmentalfactorsindesignandimplementation.Publicprocurementofnewhomesandother dwellingsshouldexcludeanydevelopersthatdonotachievethisstandard.

• Betterstrategiesforinvolvinglocalpeopleinplanningthedevelopmentanduseofsharedspace shouldsupporttheaboverecommendations.

• Toencouragethedevelopmentoflocalactivitiesthatarecollectiveandparticipative,government shouldintroducetargets.Tothisend,thereshouldaPublicServiceAgreementtargettoencourage collectiveandcommunity-ledculturalactivities–particularlyamongthosefromprioritygroupsand indisadvantagedcommunities,andthosethatencouragethemixingofdifferentagegroups.This wouldsupportandbuildonippr’srecommendationsinKeaney(2006)toencouragecivilrenewal.

• Morecrimepreventionmoneyshouldbedirectedtowards‘positive’measuresthatdefendpublic space,bydesigningthebuiltenvironmenttoencourageconstantuse,ratherthanthe‘defensive’ strategiesthatarecurrentlydominant,suchasCCTV,whichdolittletomakecrimeharderto commit.Initiativestargeting,say,designorlightinginthepublicrealmcouldactivelyencourage moreuseofpublicspace,thusnaturallyprovidingmore‘eyesonthestreet’.CABEshouldworkwith localauthorities,NACROandtheHomeOfficetoresearchanddevelopsuchastrategy.

• LocalauthoritiesarechargedwithdrawingupCommunityPlanspromotingthelong-termwelfareof theirareas.Theprocessshouldincludethecreationof‘publicrealmstrategies’asrecommendedby theUrbanTaskForce,basedongenuineconsultationwithresidents,withplanslookingupto20 yearsahead.Thequalityofpublicspace–thestreetscape,parks,greenspaces–shouldbefocused uponbyLocalStrategicPartnershipssetuptooverseetheprocessofneighbourhoodrenewalin disadvantagedlocalities. Second,weproposethefollowingrecommendationsdesignedtoincreaselocalengagementand involvementinbehaviourandcrime:

• TheRespectActionPlansetsoutarangeofmeasuresdesignedtoimprovelocalaccountabilityand bringserviceprovidersclosertotheprioritiesofpeopleintheirlocalcommunities.Senior representativesofpoliceandlocalauthoritiesshouldholdregular‘facethepublic’sessions,which couldbeopentothemedia.ThesesessionsshouldbeexpandedtomirrorthemodelofSafer

64

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

CommunityCouncilsdevelopedinNewZealand.Inthese,parents,localauthorityrepresentatives, teachersfromlocalschools,representativesofyoungpeople’sgroups,localwomen’sgroups,local businessandchurchgroupsmeetregularlywiththelocalpolicetodebatecommunityissues.

• TheNewZealandSaferCommunityCouncilsarenotonlychargedwiththeresponsibilityoftackling anti-socialbehaviourandcrimeissuesintheirlocalareas,inpartnershipwithlocalpolice,butare empoweredtoaskforlocalcrimestatistics,tobepreparedbypoliceandpresentedatmeetings. Thecouncilsdonotthemselveshaveanypowerstotacklechallengingbehaviourbutareable, throughregularmeetings,toinformthepoliceoflocalconcernsandmonitortheprogressofefforts totacklethem.TheUKshouldfollowthismodel.

• Therearefurtherexamplesofinner-cityLondonschools(suchasCamdenSchoolforGirls)taking theinitiativeinsettingupparentgroups,whichmeetregularlytodiscussandagreeonacceptable behavioursforstudents.Thereisalackofevidenceoftheeffectivenessofsuchschemes,sowe recommendinvestinginaseriesofpilotschemestotestthevalueoftheseandotherinitiatives. FurtherinformationonthisrecommendationisinSodhaandMargo(2008forthcoming). 7.Placingwelfareteamsinprimaryschools Appropriatesupportshouldbemadeavailableforallprimaryschoolagedchildrenandtheirfamilies– particularlythosemostatrisk.ThesystemofwelfaresupportinEnglishandWelshschoolsis insufficientlyfocusedonearlyintervention,andthestatutoryframeworkonlykicksinwhenchildren begintomissschool–bywhichtimeitismoredifficulttore-engagethemwiththeireducation.There isnotenoughcoordinationbetweenschoolsandsocialservicestopickuponproblemswhenthey occuratanearlystage. AsrecommendedinSodhaandMargo(forthcoming),localauthoritiesshouldemploywelfareteams comprisedofatleastonechildpsychologist,achildpsychiatrist,afamilyworker,acounselloranda schoolnursetoundertakeschoolsvisits.Theseteamsshouldbehiredbythelocalauthoritybutbe basedinschools.AsimilarapproachinAlbertaProvince,Canada,suggeststhatoneteamshould servicenomorethanthreeschoolsinalocalarea,onarotatingcycle,tomeetwithchildrenand monitortheirwelfare.Theseteamsshouldbemadeavailabletoallchildren,andshouldmeetwith eachchildatleastonceayear.Theyshouldbetaskedwithreferringchildrenandtheirfamiliesto appropriatesupportservices(suchasSureStartprogrammes,OnTrack,Connexions,SocialServicesor childandadolescentmentalhealthservices[CAMHS]),andwouldreplacethecurrentroleofschool welfareofficer. ThissystemwouldhelptosolvetheproblemofSureStartreachingthosemostinneed–thisis importantasevaluationsofSureStarthavefoundthatserviceswerenotbeingaccessedbythemostat-riskfamilies.Itwouldalsoensurethatchildrenwerereachedbyproperprofessionalsupportbefore theybegantodisplayseriousproblems.Afurtherbenefitwouldbeinensuringmorejoined-up workingbetweendifferentchildren’sservices.SeeSodhaandMargo(forthcoming)fordetails. Initially,theteamsshouldbetargetedatschoolsindeprivedinner-cityareaswhereyouthcrimeis mostoftenperpetrated.However,thelong-termaimshouldbetorollthemoutnationally,tobetter balancetheeducationalroleofschoolswiththeirpastoralresponsibilities.

Secondaryprevention 8.SureStartPlus:Atargetedapproachforat-risk5-12s Akeygapincurrentprovisionforpreventingcrimeisthatpreventativeinterventionstendtobe focusedontheearlyyears–forexample,SureStartisaimedatchildrenaged2-5.Interventions aimedataddressingemotionalwell-beingandanti-socialbehaviourbychildrenandteenagersare targeted(throughCAMHSprovision)atthosewhoarealreadyoffendingorcausinganti-social behaviour,orhaveexperiencedmentalhealthproblems.Thisistoolate:weneedarangeof interventionsforthe5-12agegroupthatpreventemotionalandbehaviouralproblemsoccurringin thefirstplace.AreportbyUttingetal (2007)recognisesthatidentifyingandsupportingat-risk childrenatanearlierstagebeforeproblemssurfacerepresentsakeypolicychallengeforthefuture.

65

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Additionalbackground TheChildren’sFund,setupin2000,aimstoreducethesocialexclusionofyoungpeopleandis targetedatchildrenaged5-13.Itprovidesfundingin149partnershipareasacrosstheUKfor interventionsdesignedtoimproveoutcomes.Thesemostlytaketheformoflocal‘club-based’ provision,includingbreakfastclubs,after-schoolclubsandhomeworkclubs.Otherservicesinclude playareas,educationalsupport,childtherapy,mentoringschemesandparent-focusedinterventions. AswithSureStart,theprimarymethodoftargetingusedisgeographical,withservicesbeingfocused onthemostdeprivedareasaccordingtotheIndexofMultipleDeprivation. Buttherestillremainsalackofjoined-upservices–particularlyforprimaryschoolagechildren. Investmentinactivitiesforyoungpeople,suchasthroughYouthMatters,hasnotbeendirectedatthe mosteffectiveactivitiesforpreventingbehaviouralproblems;ithasfocusedoverwhelminglyonyouthclubprovisionandsocialwork,butnotenoughonconstructiveactivitiesforthemostdisadvantaged (Margoetal 2006)–althoughthisischanging(HMTreasury2007).

Recommendations Thereisaclearneedforacoordinated,properlytargetedbutnationalserviceforchildrenatriskof crime,particularlyforthoseofprimaryschoolage,thattacklesfactorswithinfamiliesand communitiesthatcanleadtoyouthcrime.Thispublicserviceshouldbeintroducedinlinewith previousipprrecommendations–particularlytheideabehind‘SureFutures’,recommendedby EdwardsandHatch(2003)–aservicedesignedtoaddresstheneedsofolderchildrenandteenagers. ThereiscurrentlyapilotofSureStartPlusforteenageparentsandtheirchildren;thisschemeshould beradicallyextended.Eventually,theaimshouldbeforSureStart-styleservicestobeavailabletoall agegroups.WhileSureStartPlusshouldserve5-12sandtheirfamilies,aSureFuturesshouldoffer thekindsofcareerguidance,activitiesandadvicethatteenagersandtheirfamiliesneed. ViaSureStartPlus,interventionstoaddressimpulsivenessthatleadstocriminalactivitycanbe addressedthroughcognitivebehaviourtherapywhileotherriskfactors,suchaslowschoolattainment, requiremoreestablishedbutnonethelessintensiveinterventions(suchasReadingRecovery,anearly literacyinterventionprogrammeforchildrenattheendofthefirstyearofprimaryschool).Holistic programmes,suchasmultisystemictherapy,areofprovenefficacyforthosewiththemostcomplex needs,whiletargetedparentingprogrammesofthekindreviewedherehavebeenshowntoimprove outcomes. Thelong-termaimshouldbetodrawthesemulti-agencyinterventionstogetherundertherubricof ‘children’sservices’intoacoherentservicethatreachesthosechildrenwhoareatriskofprolific offendingfromagesfiveto12.WeproposethatthiswouldbeintheformofaSureStartPlus programme,directedatkeepingyoungchildrenoutofcrime,thatwouldtargetolderchildrennot servedbySureStart.Ultimately,thisshouldbedevelopedandimplementedinabroader,more inclusivewayinordertoreachallparents,followingaprimary,notsecondary,approach,althoughthis woulddependonresourceavailability. Evidencesuggeststhatsuchaninterventionwouldreceivewidespreadsupport.Itwouldalsohelp shiftmoreoftheresourcesspentonyoungpeopletowardsthoselivinginconditionsofdisadvantage indeprivedareas. Althoughprovisionandservicesofferedshouldberesponsivetolocalneed,SureStartPlusshould offerthefollowingtypesofinterventionthatarealreadyofferedinsomepartsofthecountry,across thenation:

• Cognitivebehaviouraltherapytoaddressimpulsivenessandotherpersonalitytraitsthatleadto criminalactivity

• Multisystemictherapyforthosewiththemostcomplexneeds • Intensiveeducationinterventions,suchasReadingRecovery,forthosewithpoorliteracy attainment

• Targetedparentingprogrammesofthekindreviewedhere,suchasfunctionalfamilytherapy.

66

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Reachinghard-to-reachgroups Childrenandyoungpeoplewhohavecommittedanti-socialactsshouldbereferredwiththeirfamilies toSureStartPlusalongsideanyotherprogrammeororder.IdeallySureStartPluswouldreachthe most-at-riskgroupsbeforeriskfactorssuchasanti-socialbehaviourbecamemanifest.Hard-to-reach groupsareaproblemthattheGovernmenthasacknowledgedwithregardtoSureStart.LikeSure Start,theSureStartPlusschemeshouldbetargetedgeographicallyatthemostdeprivedareasbutit shouldberecognisedthat,aswithSureStart,therecouldbeproblemsinthatitmightexcludethe hardest-to-reachgroups. Wethereforesuggestadualapproach,combininggeographicallytargetedservicesalongsidean elementofindividualentitlementtoSureStartPlusservicesforat-riskchildren,tohelpensurethat theprovisionreachesthosewhoneeditthemost.Thiswouldhelpensurethatchildren’saccesstothe interventionisnotlimitedbylackofparentalagency. Onewayinwhichthiscouldbedeliveredisthroughindividualbudgetholding,whichiscurrently beingpilotedin16areas.Inthepilotschemes,leadprofessionalscontrolindividualbudgetsforat-risk childrenthatcanbeusedtobuyarangeofservices,includingleisureactivities,schoolholiday activities,travelcosts,parentingsupportgroups,respitecareandcounselling.Budgetsrangefrom £100to£2500.Ifbudgetholdingwererolledoutonawiderbasistoallat-riskchildren,anindividual entitlementtoSureStartPlusservicescouldactasabolt-on,witharingfencedamountavailableto spendonpreventativeservicesinthebudgetofeachat-riskchild.Thesecouldbeusedtopurchase treatmentsuchasthoselistedabove. 9.Real,engagingprovisionforexcludedpupils HugevariationexistsinprovisionforpupilsexcludedfrommainstreamschoolsinEnglandandWales, withamarked‘insider-outsider’culture.Excludedyoungpeoplewhoarenotinformaleducationare amongthosemostlikelytocommitanoffenceandbreachanorder.Ensuringthatthereisreal,engaging provisionforthesegroupsshouldbeanessentialcomponentofanimprovedpreventionstrategy. Inaforthcomingreport(SodhaandMargo2008),ipprhasrecommendedtheintroductionof ‘outreachschools’,asruninAlbertaProvince,Canada.Theseschools,whichoperateoutofdisused buildingsandshopfronts,havethesamestatusasstateschools,andfollowthesamecurriculum,but withamoreflexibletimetable. Ifschoolssuchasthisweresubsidisedbylocalauthorities,theywouldofferless-structuredlearning opportunities,combinedwithon-sitetherapistsandsocialworkers,toyoungpeoplewhohavebeen excludedfrommainstreamprovision.Theyshouldofferamixtureofguidedindependentlearningand class-basedlearning,withahigherlevelofpastoralsupportthantraditionalschools,andshouldbe staffedbyfullyqualifiedteacherswhohavetrainingandexperienceofworkingwithyoungpeople withproblembehaviours. Researchrevealsstaying-onratesatCanada’soutreachschoolsofmorethan95percent–some achievementconsideringthattheyareservingthemostchallengingandat-riskyoungpeople.Thekey totheirsuccessisthattheyaresmall,allowingadequateattentionforeachchild,andofferlessformal teaching.Timetablesarelessrigid,thereisanexpectationofattendanceforaminimumperiodeach weekbutworkcanalsobecompletedathomeorelsewhereifthissuitsthechild,andtheyarestrongly linkedtolocalsocialservicesviatheiron-sitestaff,enablingchildrenandyoungpeopletoreceive guidanceandsupportwhennecessary.Outreachschoolsarecheaptorunintermsofstaffandresource costs,andbuildinghireisminimalasaresultofusingdisusedandinformalsitesinthelocalarea.We recommendthattheUKwouldfollowthismodel.(SeeSodhaandMargo2008,forthcoming.) 10.ReformofASBOlegislation Additionalbackground BetweenApril1999,whenAnti-SocialBehaviourOrders(ASBOs)wereintroduced,andDecember 2005atotalof9,853ASBOswereissuedinEnglandandWales,with41percentoftheseservedon

67

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

peopleundertheageof18.TheuseofASBOsisontheincrease,withthemajorityofordersissuedin thattimeoccurringattheendoftheperiod,in2004(3,440)and2005(4,060)(HomeOffice2005). Asmoreandmoreevidencecomestolightoftheineffectivenessofpunitivemeasuresalonein preventingoffending,itisbecomingincreasinglydifficulttojustifytheuseofASBOsonchildren whenthesearenotaccompaniedbyotherinterventionsaimedataddressingtheirproblems. AccordingtotheGovernment(HomeOffice2005),theASBOwasneverintendedtobeaformof punishment,butwasmeantinsteadtodirectfamiliestosupportanddivertyoungpeoplefromcrime. ButthemannerinwhichASBOshavebeenemployedsincetheirintroduction,andtheextentoftheir use,hasunderminedthisgoal.Sohasthefactthatthelegislationdoesnotrequireanassessmentof thechild’sneedsbeforeanorderisgiven–althoughthismaybechanginginlinewith recommendationsintheChildren’sPlan(2007).EvidencethatASBOsarenotusedtodirectyoung peopletosupportshouldbesufficienttoencourageproperreformofthesystem.AsTable8.2shows, IndividualSupportOrders(ISOs)arerarelyhandedouttoyoungpeople,andParentingOrdersarealso usedquiteinfrequently.ItisASBOsandAcceptableBehaviourContracts(ABCs)thatareusedfar moreoften. Table8.2:Anti-socialbehaviourinterventions,bynumbers Typesofintervention 1Oct03–30Sept04 1Oct04–30Sept05 Percentageincrease AcceptableBehaviourContracts 5,094 8,654 70 Anti-SocialBehaviourOrders 2,874 4,274 49 HousingInjunctions 946 1,614 71 ParentingContracts 307 1,296 322 ParentingOrders 229 537 134 CrackHouseClosureOrders 176 338 92 IndividualSupportOrders 5 30 500 Note:CrackHouseClosureOrderswerebroughtinfromJanuary2004andIndividualSupportOrdersfromMay2004. Source:NationalAuditOffice

Recommendations Cognitivescienceandpsychologicalresearchdonotsupportthenotionthatchildrenasyoungas10 yearsoldcanbetreatedasautonomousindividualswhoarefullyawareoftheconsequencesoftheir actions.Instead,problematicbehaviourofchildrenofthisageshouldbeseenasasignalofa problematicfamilyorsocialcontext,andthisneedstobethefocusofinterventions.Anti-social behaviourshouldbedealtwiththroughstrategiesthattargetfamily,communityandpeergroups,as recommendedabove,viatherapeuticinterventions,leisureactivitiesandproperprovisionofservices locally.Strategiestotackleindividualriskfactorswillnotworkiftheydonotalsotacklethefactors thatunderpinpooremotionalandsocialdevelopment. WeshouldthereforeundertakeurgentreviewoftheuseofASBOsandcreatenewguidelinesto ensurethattheyareusedtodivertchildrenawayfromcrimeand,withtheirfamilies,towardsservice support–ratherthanasemptypunishmentsorshort-termsanctions. ItwouldbeneitherpoliticallytenablenorrationaltodoawaywithASBOlegislation.Theevidence fromtheTogetherActionPlanwebsiteshowsthatASBOsserveanimportantfunctioninreassuring thepublic,anddogivelocalcommunitiesanimportantadditionalpowertocombatthelocaldisorder thatcangreatlyreducequalityoflife. However,onthebackoftheevidencecitedinthisreport,werecommendthatASBOsshouldnotbe giventochildrenunder14yearsofageunlessaccompaniedbyfamily-basedandotherinterventions. Thiswouldservetoreaffirmtheroleofthefamilyinchildren’slivesandtoensureamoresustainable approach.Theseordersshoulddirectthefamilytothekindsoftherapeuticinterventionreviewed here:notmerelyparentingclasses,butmultisystemicorfunctionaltherapyapproachesofproven efficacy,whichshouldbedeliveredeventuallyviaSureStartPlus.

68

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

For15-to18-year-olds,ASBOsshouldbelimitedtobetweensixmonthsandtwoyears,with therapeuticandfamilyinterventionemployedalongsideallexceptthemostminororders.Thereisno justificationforanorderthatlastslongerthantwoyears,butcurrentordersmaylastbetweentwo andtenyears.Atwo-yearASBOsendsthesamemessagetothepublicthatthebehaviourisbeing dealtwithasalongerorder,butdoesnottieayoungpersonintolonger-term,ineffectivebansthat aretooeasilybreached.Thisshouldhelpreducethenumberofyoungpeopleendingupincourtfor breachingordersrelatingtominoranti-socialactivities. Insomecases,thefamilymaybeaseriousproblemfortheyoungperson–forexample,abuseor neglectmaybeencouragingtheanti-socialbehaviour.Anti-socialbehaviourlegislationshouldbeable todirectchildrentosocialservicesand,intheworstcases,therapeuticfostercare.Forexample,Kent CountyCouncilhasestablishedatherapeuticFosterCareProjectforchildrenagedbetween4and13. Thechildrenareplacedtemporarily(foruptotwoyears)inatherapeuticfoster-carehome.Thefoster carersaretrainedby,andarepartof,acareplanningteam,andundertakesometasksnormallycarried outbysocialworkers,suchasrecordingthechild’sprogressandadvocatingforthechild.Theyalso meetregularlywithapsychologistandwithothermembersofthecareteamforthechild.Such interventionshavepreviouslybeenjudgedasveryeffective(seeBaas2005),andshouldbeextended wherepossibleinseriouslydisadvantagedareas. Insummary,reformofanti-socialbehaviourlegislationisrequiredinordertolimittheuseof‘empty’ sanctionsandinsteadtouseorderstodirectchildrenandtheirfamiliestoappropriateprogrammes andprofessionalsupport,viaSureStart,socialservicesand–inthelong-term–SureStartPlus. Specifically:

•

Anti-socialbehaviourlegislationshouldbeexplicitlyframedasawayofdirectingthemostat-risk youngpeopleandtheirfamiliestowardsappropriatesupportandservices,inordertodivert youngpeoplefromcrime.

•

ASBOsshouldnotbeusedonchildrenyoungerthan14.Instead,FamilyandParentingOrders shouldbeusedtoimprovethefamilycontextinwhichthebehaviouroccurs,ortoensure appropriatecareforthechildinextremesituations,suchasfostercareoradditionalservice supportforthefamily.

•

Childrenaged15-18shouldbeassessedinallcasesasamatterofcoursebeforebeinggivenan ASBO.

•

ThelengthofASBOsforolderchildrenunder18shouldbescaledbacktobetweensixand24 months.

11.Decriminalisingchildren Therecommendationsabovewouldbeafirststeptowardsamorewelfare-orientatedapproachto divertingyouthcrime. However,severalfindingsreportedhereshouldalsohaveimplicationsforournotionofwhenachild canbeheldcriminallyresponsible,andhowwerespondtoyouthoffending. Neuroscience,developmentalpsychologyandbehaviouralscienceallproduceevidencetosuggest thatthecapacitytomakemoraldecisionsandtocontrolemotionsisunderdevelopedinchildrenand teenagers.Punitivemeasuresmaythereforebeinappropriateforyoungpeopleinthe10-14age range.Instead,theyneedtolearn,throughpropertherapeuticinterventionsthathavebeentriedand tested,tocontroltheiremotionsandbehaviour,andtobegivenachancetodevelopthecapacityto dosobeforebeinggivenacriminalrecord. Evidencefromaroundtheworldshowsthatpunitivemeasuresdonotdivertyoungpeoplefromcrime aseffectivelyasdotherapeuticandfamily-basedinterventions.Usingcivilroutestodirectyoung peopletoappropriatesupportandinterventionwouldthereforebelesscostlyandmoreeffectivethan thepresentinterventions. Politically,thecriminalisingofyoungchildrensendsthewrongmessagetothepublicandencourages

69

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

theexistingnegativeattitudestochildrenandyoungpeople.Instead,weneedtorepresentchildren astheyare–atleastpartlyasproductsofaparticularenvironment,notyetautonomousindividuals, andcapableofreformingbehaviourandattitudesifgiventheappropriateopportunity. Currentpublicandpoliticaldebatemeansthatfurtherchangetocriminaljusticelegislationwillbe difficulttoundertake.Butinthelongterm,theaimmustbetogroundtheresponsetoyouthcrime fullyintheevidenceofwhatworks,andinamorewelfare-orientatedapproachtoyouthoffending. Alongsidethis,wemustcontinuetochallengeandquestionthelanguageusedinmediaandbypublic figures,includingpoliticians,todescribeyoungpeopleandrefutetheclaimthatyoungpeopleare somehowdistinctfrommainstreamsociety.Recognisingtheresponsibilityofadultstotheyounger generationmaynotbeachallengethatpolicyalonecansolve,but,asthisreportshows,thereare someimportantwaysinwhichitcanmakeastart.

70

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Appendix:Dataanalysisofthe1970cohort SoniaSodha ThisAppendixdetailstheoriginaldataanalysisofthe1970BritishCohortStudy,suppliedbytheUK dataarchive,carriedoutbyipprforthisreport,tolookatmentalhealthoutcomesatage16.Thisdata analysislooksatthefactorsthatareassociatedwithhigherlevelsofmalaiseandbehaviouraland emotionalproblemsatage16forthe1970cohort.Theresultsarereportedattheendofthis Appendix.

The1970BritishCohortStudy TheBritishCohortStudy(BCS)isalongitudinalsurveythattrackedarepresentativesampleofpeople borninEngland,ScotlandandWalesduringtheweekof5-11April1970.Informationwasalso collectedatage5(in1975),atage10(1980),atage16(1986),atage26(1996),atage30(19992000)andatage34(2004-05).Thesamplesizein1970contained17,200children.However,in subsequentyearsthesamplesizewasmuchsmallerduetoattrition,withsomechildrennottracedfor subsequentinterviews. Thestudyrepresentsanincrediblyrichsourceofdata:althoughitwasoriginallydesignedwitha specificfocusonperinatalmortalityandtheprovisionofantenatalandpostnatalservices,inlater wavesitexpandeditsfocustoawiderangeofsocioeconomic,demographic,health,attitudinaland abilitymeasures(Sigle-Rushton2004).Despiterelativelyhighratesofattrition,paststudieshave shownthatthesamplesizesachievedremainbroadlyrepresentativeoftheBritishpopulation (Shepherd1997).

Mentalhealthoutcomesinadolescence:previousfindings Todeterminewhichchildhood/adolescencefactorsmightbeimportantindeterminingpoor adolescentmentalhealthoutcomes,weundertookaliteraturereviewofexistingstudiesofmental healthoutcomesbasedontheanalysisoflarge-scaledata.Ourreviewoffersagoodguideastowhich factorsweneedtoincludeinourdataanalysis,butdemonstratesthatthereisagap:thereisno analysisthatusesstatisticalregressiontechniquesoneitherlongitudinalornon-longitudinalUKdata toexaminewhichfactorsareassociatedwithnegativementalhealthoutcomesinadolescence,as opposedtoinchildhood. Moreover,thereisnoUKstudythatexaminesindicatorsofemotionalwell-beinginchildhood,suchas self-esteem,locusofcontrolandanxiety,andtheassociationoftheseindicatorswithnegativemental healthoutcomesinadolescence. AstudybyMeltzeretal (2000),basedonNationalStatisticsdatafrom1999,examineswhich populationsofchildrenaged5-15aremostlikelytosufferfrommentalhealthoutcomes,basedon surveydatafromparents,teachersandthechildrenthemselves.Theyfindthatpoormentalhealth outcomes–intheformofemotionaldisorders(suchasanxiety,depressionandobsession), hyperactivitydisorders(suchasinattentionandoveractivity)andconductdisorders(characterisedby awkward,troublesome,aggressiveandanti-socialbehaviours)–aremoreprevalentwithincertain populations. Thesepopulationsareasfollows:

• Childrenfromlowersocioeconomicgroups–14percentofchildreninsocialclassV(unskilled occupations)hadmentalhealthproblemscomparedwithjust5percentinsocialclassI

• Childrenfromfamiliesinlower-incomegroups • Childrenfromlone-parentfamilies:16percentofchildrenfromlone-parentfamilieshadmental healthproblemscomparedwith8percentfromtwo-parentfamilies

• Step-families:15percentfromstep-familiescomparedwith9percentfromotherfamilies • Childrenfromlargefamilies

71

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

• Childrenwhoseparentshadlowerornoeducationalqualifications:15percentofchildrenwhose parentshadnoqualificationscomparedwith6percentofchildrenwhoseparentshaddegreelevelqualifications

• Childrenwhoseparentswereoutofwork:infamiliesinwhichneitherparenthadeverworked,21 percentofchildrenhadmentalhealthproblems

• Childreninrentedaccommodation:13percentofchildreninprivately-rentedaccommodation and17percentofchildreninsocialhousinghadmentalhealthproblemscomparedwithjust6 percentofthoseinowner-occupierfamilies

• Childrenwithphysicaldisorders,includingepilepsy,coordinationdifficulties,muscledisease,bedwettingandobesity

• Childrenwithspecialneeds:44percentofchildrenwiththeseverestlevelofspecialneeds (stages4and5)hadproblems,comparedwith6percentofchildrenwithoutspecialneeds

• Childrenwhoseparentshadmentalhealthproblems. However,Meltzeretal (2000)donotperformastatisticalregressiononthisdata,soitisnotpossible toextrapolatehowimportanteachoftheabovefactorsiswhileallotherfactorsareheldconstant. Thismeansthatwecannotdrawoutrelationshipsfromthedata,asonerelationship(forexample, betweenparentalmentalhealthandchildmentalhealth)mayentirelyaccountforanother(for example,betweensocialclassandchildmentalhealth).Allthisdataenablesustodoistodraw conclusionsabouttheincidenceofmentalhealthproblemsindifferentpopulationgroups. Siegle-Rushton(2004)usesthe1970BritishCohortStudytoundertakeastatisticalregression analysisofmentalhealthoutcomesinadulthood(atage30).Usingself-reportedmalaise(seebelow) astheoutcomeofinterest,shefindsthatformen,anxiety,aggression,lowperformanceinacademic tests,experienceoflivinginpoverty,lowersocialclassandlivinginsocialhousinginchildhoodwere associatedwithhigherlevelsofmalaiseatage30.Forwomen,restlessness,aggression,low performanceinacademictests,livinginnon-owner-occupiedhousing,povertyinchildhoodandlower socialclassinchildhoodwereassociatedwithhigherlevelsofmalaiseatage30.Theanalysiscontrols forawiderangeofsocioeconomicanddemographicfactors,butnotforlocusofcontrol,self-esteem orparentalmentalhealthinchildhood. TherearealsoimportantstudiesintheUnitedStatesandSwitzerlandthatexamineadolescentmental health.DatafromtheOregonAdolescentDepressionProject–alargecohortstudyofstudentsaged 14-18whowereassessedattwopointsoverayear–showarelationshipbetweenbehavioural problems,experienceofstressfullifeevents,lowself-esteem,increasedself-consciousness,reduced socialsupport,excessivelyemotionaldependenceonothersandimpairedcopingskills,anddepression inadolescence(Lewinsohnetal 1994). Meanwhile,analysisoftheZurichAdolescentandPsychologyandPsychopathologyStudy,a longitudinalstudyfromtheearly1990sofyoungpeopleatages13,16and20,showsthatavoidant behaviour,perceivedparentalrejection,highlevelsofcompetitionamongclassmates,controlling teachersandhighperformancestressatschoolwereriskfactorsforexternalisingbehaviourproblems (includingdisruptivebehaviourandconductdisorders).Similarly,avoidantbehaviour,perceived parentalrejection,highlevelsofcompetitionamongclassmates,andcontrollingteacherswere associatedwithinternalisingbehaviourproblems(includinganxietyanddepression).Highself-esteem, perceivedparentalwarmthandpeeracceptanceseemedtobeprotectivefactorsforbothkindsof problems(Steinhausen2006). Previousanalysesusingthisstudyhavealsoshownthatlowself-esteemisstronglyassociatedwith depression(SteinhausenandWinklerMetzke2001). Rosenbergetal (1989)usedatafromYouthinTransition,aUSpanelstudyof10th-gradeboys interviewedin1966and1968,toconsiderthecausalrelationshipbetweenself-esteemand depression.Thisstudyalsoidentifiedastrongrelationshipbetweenlowself-esteemanddepression, andtheanalysissuggestedthatmostofthecausalrelationshipranfromself-esteemtodepression.

72

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Assessingbehaviouralandemotionaloutcomesinadolescence Toassessbehaviouralandemotionalwell-beinginadolescence,weuseavarietyofindicatorsthatare availableintheBCSdata.Thefirstisself-reportedmalaise,assessedusingthe15-itempsychological subscaleoftheMalaiseInventory(Rodgersetal 1999).Originallydevelopedinthe1970sbyMichael Rutter(Rutteretal 1970),thisisacommonly-usedself-completionscalefortheassessmentof psychiatricmorbidityusingquestionsaboutthesymptomsofdepressionandanxiety.Itassesses depressedmoodratherthandepressivedisordersdirectly(Collishawetal 2004b).Ithasbeenshown tobeinternallyconsistentandexternallyvalid(Rodgersetal 1999). TheBritishCohortStudyfollow-uppupilquestionnaire,conducted16yearsafterthestudystarted, containedthefollowingquestionstoassessmalaise: 1.Doyoufeeltired? 2.Doyoufeelmiserableordepressed? 3.Dothingsworryyou? 4.Doyouhavegreatdifficultysleeping? 5.Doyouwakeunnecessarilyearlyinthemorning? 6.Doyouwearyourselfoutworryingaboutyourhealth? 7.Doyouevergetintoaviolentrage? 8.Dopeopleannoyandirritateyou? 9.Doyousuddenlybecomescaredfornogoodreason? 10.Areyouscaredifalone? 11.Areyoueasilyupsetorirritated? 12.Areyoufrightenedofgoingoutaloneormeetingpeople? 13.Areyoukeyedupandjittery? 14.Isyourappetitepoor? 15.Doeseverylittlethinggetonyournervesandwearyouout? Studentswereaskedtorespond‘mostofthetime’,‘someofthetime’or‘rarelyornever’.Foreach question,wescored0for‘rarelyornever’,0.5for‘someofthetime’,and1for‘mostofthetime’to produceamalaisescoreoutof15. Summaryinformationaboutmalaiseatage16ispresentedinTable1. Table1:Malaisescoresatage16 Observations Mean Standarddeviation Median

Lowerquartile

Upperquartile

Min

Max

4,837

2

4.5

0

15

3.40

2.10

3

AsTable1shows,dataonmalaiseisavailableonlyforarestrictednumberinthesample:for4,837of the6,00316-year-oldswhocompletedthestudentquestionnairein1986,andofthe10,112children whohavesomedatainthe1970,1980and1986waves. Wethereforecreatedadummyvariableforamissingmalaisescoreandranaprobitregressionforall 10,112childrenwithdataineachofthethreewavesused,controllingformother’sageatbirth,birth weight,numberofoldersiblings,sex,socioeconomicgroupatage10and16,father’seducationlevel, mother’seducationlevel,eligibilityforfreeschoolmealsatage10,whetherparentalattitudeswere hostileordismissiveatage10,whetherthechildhadnoparentsatage10,whethertherewasno fatherfigureinthehouseholdatage10,housingtenureatages10and16,andfatherandmother’s employmentstatusatages10and16.

73

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Thefollowingfactorswerefoundtobesignificantlyassociatedwithamissingmalaisescore:

• Youngermotheratbirth • Havingoldersiblings–particularlymorethanone • Fatherhavingnoqualifications • Beingmale • Motherhavingnoqualifications • Entitlementtofreeschoolmealsatage10 • Parentsnotowninghomeatages10and16 • Motherunemployedatage10 • BeingfromsocioeconomicgroupIV(partlyskilledoccupations)orV(unskilledoccupations)at age16. Ratherthanimputemalaisescoresforsuchalargesectionofthesample,wedroppedmissingcases fromtheanalysis.Thisdoesneedtobeborneinmindwheninterpretingthefollowingfindings. However,ourmodelsbelowsuggestthatmalaiseatage16isnotsignificantlyassociatedwithmostof thefactorsabove. Thesecondsetofindicatorsthatweusedcomprisesaseriesofbehaviouralindicators.Information wascollectedonbehaviouratages10and16,bothatschool(inateachers’questionnaire)andat home(inparentalinterviews).Wehaveusedtheinformationfromparentsaboutachild’sbehaviour: firstbecausethequestionsaskedofparentsatage16weremuchmorewiderangingthanthose askedofteachers,andsecondbecausethereturnrateofteacherquestionnairesin1986was extremelylow(just3,816)duetoaNationalUnionofTeachersstrikethatwasonatthetime (GoodmanandButler1986,Gerova2005). Inordertoassessbehaviouraloutcomesatage16,wefollowCollishawetal (2004b)inproducingfour compositescoresfor:

• Aggressiveconduct(assessedusingevidenceoffightingorbullying) • Non-aggressiveconduct(assessedusingevidenceofstealing,lyinganddisobedience) • Hyperactivity(assessedusingevidenceoffidgeting,restlessnessandinattention) • Emotionalproblems(assessedusingevidenceofmisery,worriesandbeingfearfulofnew situations). Atage16,motherswereaskedwhetherstatementsregardingtheabove‘certainlyapplies’,‘applies somewhat’or‘doesn’tapply’totheirchildren–or,insomecases,whetherstatementsappliedtotheir children‘verymuch’,‘prettymuch’,‘justalittle’or‘notatall’.Wescoredanswerstoquestionswith threediscretecategories0,0.5or1(with1indicatingpresenceofabehaviouralproblem),and answerswithfourdiscretecategories:0,0.33,0.66or1.Wethenstandardisedscorestohaveamean of0andastandarddeviationof1. Table2showsthemean,standarddeviation,minimaandmaximaforeachofthecompositescores. Table2:Standardisedbehaviouralscoresatage16 Score Observations Missingscores Mean

Standarddeviation

Min

Max

Aggressiveconduct

7,720

730

0

1

-0.359

6.653

Non-aggressiveconduct

7,751

750

0

1

-0.563

5.257

Hyperactivity

7,811

781

0

1

-0.740

5.047

Emotionalproblems

7,763

767

0

1

-0.798

4.317

74

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Explanatoryvariables Belowwediscusstheexplanatoryvariablesusedinourmodels. Emotionalwell-beinginchildhood Weusedsixmeasuresasproxiesforemotionalwell-beinginchildhood,describedbelow.

Locusofcontrol Thefirstindicatorofemotionalwell-beingusedhereislocusofcontrol(Rotter1954,Feinstein2000). Locusofcontrolreferstoanindividual’ssenseofbeingabletoinfluencetheirowndestiny.Individuals withahighlocusofcontrolarebetterabletoprocessinformationfromtheoutsideworld,are concernedwithimprovingthemselvesandtheircircumstances,andaremorestableinresponseto externalinfluences(Rotter1954). LocusofcontrolisassessedbymeansoftheCARALOCquestionnairedevelopedbyGammage(1975). Thisisaseriesof15questions(withfiveadditionaldistracterquestions)asfollows: 1.Doyoufeelthatmostofthetimeit’snotworthtryinghardbecausethingsneverturnoutright anyway? 2.Doyoufeelthatwishingcanmakegoodthingshappen? 3.Arepeoplegoodtoyounomatterhowyouacttowardsthem? 4.Doyouusuallyfeelthatit’salmostuselesstotryinschoolbecauseothersareclevererthanyou? 5.Isahighmarkjustamatterof‘luck’foryou? 6.Aretestsjustalotofguessworkforyou? 7.Areyouoftenblamedforthingswhichjustaren’tyourfault? 8.Areyouthekindofpersonwhobelievesthatplanningaheadmakesthingsturnoutbetter? 9.Whenbadthingshappentoyou,isitusuallysomeoneelse’sfault? 10.Whensomeoneisveryangrywithyou,isitimpossibletomakehimyourfriendagain? 11.Whennicethingshappentoyouisitonlygoodluck? 12.Whenyougetintoanargumentisitusuallytheotherperson’sfault? 13.Areyousurprisedwhenyourteachersaysyou’vedonewell? 14.Doyouusuallygetlowmarks,evenwhenyoustudyhard? 15.Doyouthinkstudyingfortestsisawasteoftime? Studentswereaskedtorespondin1980and1986with‘yes’,‘no’and‘don’tknow’astowhether thesestatementsappliedtothem.Inallcases,‘don’tknow’wasscored0.5.Forallquestionsexcept8, ‘no’wasscored1and‘yes’0,andforQuestion8‘yes’wasscored1and‘no’0. Westandardisedthesescorestohaveameanof0andstandarddeviationof1.Intheanalysis,we controlledforthestandardisedCARALOCscoreatage10,andthedifferencebetweenthe standardisedCARALOCscoresatage10and16. Table3:StandardisedCARALOCscoresatages10and16 Score Observations Missingscores Mean

Standarddeviation

Min

Max

CARALOCage10

8,633

1,479

0

1

-4.22

1.69

CARALOCage16

4,883

5,229

0

1

-4.41

1.38

Self-esteem Thesecondindicatorofemotionalwell-beingthatweusedisself-esteem.ThisisdefinedbyLawrence (1981)as‘achild’saffectiveevaluationofthesumtotalofhisorhercharacteristicsbothmentaland physical’.Likelocusofcontrol,thisisassessedintheBCSin1980and1986usingaquestionnaire–in thiscase,theLawrenceSelf-EsteemQuestionnaire(LAWSEQ–Lawrence1973).

75

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

In1986,therewere12questions: 1.Doyouthinkyourparentsusuallyliketohearaboutyourideas? 2.Doyouoftenfeellonelyatschool? 3.Dootherchildren(pupils)oftenbreakfriendsorfalloutwithyou? 4.Doyouthinkthatotherchildren(pupils)oftensaynastythingsaboutyou? 5.Whenyouhavetosaythingsinfrontofteachers,doyouusuallyfeelshy? 6.Doyouoftenfeelsadbecauseyouhavenobodytoplaywithatschool? 7.Aretherelotsofthingsaboutyourselfyouwouldliketochange? 8.Whenyouhavetosaythingsinfrontofotherchildren,doyouusuallyfeelfoolish? 9.Whenyouwanttotellateachersomething,doyouusuallyfeelfoolish? 10.Doyouoftenhavetofindnewfriends? 11.Doyouusuallyfeelfoolishwhenyoutalktoyourparents? 12.Dootherpeopleoftenthinkthatyoutelllies? Questions6and8wereomittedin1986.Studentswereaskedtorespond‘yes’,‘no’,or‘don’tknow’. Again,‘don’tknow’wasalwaysscored0.5,forallquestionsexcept1,‘no’wasscored1and‘yes’0, andfor1,‘yes’wasscored1and‘no’0.Thesescoreswerestandardisedtohaveameanof0anda standarddeviationof1.Inthemodelsbelow,wecontrolledforstandardisedself-esteemscoreatage 10,andthedifferencebetweenstandardisedself-esteemscoresatages10and16. Table4:StandardisedLAWSEQscoresatages10and16 Score Observations Missingscores Mean

Standarddeviation

Min

Max

LAWSEQatage10

8,631

1,481

0

1

-3.57

1.27

LAWSEQatage16

4,415

5,697

0

1

-4.36

1.42

Aggressiveconduct,non-aggressiveconduct,hyperactivityandemotionalproblemsatage10 Finally,wealsousedmeasuresofaggressiveconduct,non-aggressiveconduct,hyperactivityand emotionalproblemsatage10,usingthesamemethodologyasatage16.However,in1980mothers wereaskedtoscoretheirchildren’sbehaviourbymakingamarkonacontinuousscaleratherthan usingdiscretecategories,whichwasthencodedasascoreof0to100.Thesescoresweretherefore simplysummedtogivescoresacrossthesefourdimensions,andstandardisedtogiveameanof0and standarddeviationof1. Table5:Standardisedbehaviouralscoresatage10 Score Observations Missingscores

Mean

Standarddeviation

Min

Max

Aggressiveconduct

7,720

2,392

0

1

-0.36

6.65

Non-aggressiveconduct

7,751

2,361

0

1

-0.56

5.26

Hyperactivity

7,811

2,301

0

1

-0.74

5.05

Emotionalproblems

7,763

2,349

0

1

-0.80

4.32

Othervariables Inadditiontoemotionalwell-beinginchildhood,wealsocontrolforawiderangeofothervariables, includingsocioeconomicanddemographicoutcomes:

• Mother’sageatbirth(treatedasacontinuousvariable:53caseswithmissingvaluesdropped) • Birthweight(treatedasacontinuousvariable:8caseswithmissingvaluesdropped)

76

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

• Numberofoldersiblings • Sex • Socioeconomicgroupofheadofthehouseholdatages10and16 • Father/mother’shighestqualificationatages10and16 • Eligibilityforfreeschoolmealsatage10 • Whethermother/father’sattitudestowardstheirchildarehostileatage10 • Whethermother/father’sattitudestowardstheirchildaredismissiveatage10 • Whetherthechildhasnoparentsatage10 • Whetherthechildhasnofatherfigureinthehouseholdatage10 • Housingtenureatages10and16 • Employmentstatusofmotherandfatheratages10and16 • Child’sreadingscoreontheEdinburghReadingTestatage10(scoreswerestandardisedtogivea meanof0andstandarddeviationof1)

• Child’smathsscoreontheFriendlyMathsTestatage10(scoreswerestandardisedtogivea meanof0andstandarddeviationof1)

• Mother’sstandardisedmalaisescoreatage10(calculatedfromthe15-pointpsychological MalaiseInventory.Incontrasttothepupilmalaisequestionnaireatage16,motherswereasked tomarktheextenttowhichastatementappliedtothemalongacontinuousscale,andthese responseswerecodedasascoreof0to100.Themother’smalaisescorewascalculatedby summingscoresoverthe15questions,andstandardisingscorestogiveameanof0and standarddeviationof1).

Results WeranOrdinaryLeastSquares(OLS)linearregressionsonmalaisescoresandthestandardised behaviouralscoresatage16,controllingfortheabovevariablesatages10and16.Theresultsare presentedbelow. Model1:Malaiseatage16 • OLSregression

• Dependentvariable:malaiseat16 • Numberofobservations:2,296 •R-squared:0.2851 *anditalics indicatessignificanceatthe10percentlevel **andbold indicatessignificanceatthe5percentlevel Explanatoryvariable Mother’sage .0087 Birthweight(kg) Numberofoldersiblings(comparator:none) One Two Threeormore Sex(comparator:male) Female Householdsocioeconomicstatusatage10(comparator:IorII) IIIman/non-man

Coefficient -.0089

Standarderror

.0000

.0001

.1500* -.0374 .1324

.0883 .1249 .1605

.8577**

.0787

-.1307

.1113 cont.nextpage

77

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

IV/V missing Householdsocioeconomicstatusatage16(comparator:IorII) IIIman/non-man IV/V missing Father’shighestqual(comparator:none/other) Degree A-level O-level Mother’shighestqual(comparator:none/other) Degree A-level O-level Freeschoolmealsat10 Noparents Nofatherfigureinhousehold Housingtenureatage10(comparator:parents’own) Privaterented Socialhousing Other missing Housingtenureatage16(comparator:parents’own) Privaterented Socialhousing Other missing Father’semploymentstatusat10(comparator:employed) Outofwork Other/missing Mother’semploymentstatusat10(comparator:employed) Unemployed Lookingafterhome Other/missing Father’semploymentstatusat16(comparator:employed) Outofwork Other/missing Mother’semploymentstatusat16(comparator:employed) Unemployed Lookingafterhome Other/missing Father’sattitudedismissiveatage10 Mother’sattitudedismissiveatage10 Father’sattitudehostileatage10 Mother’sattitudehostileatage10 Mother’smalaisescoreat10 Locusofcontrol10 Diffinlocusofcontrol10-16 Self-esteem10 Diffinself-esteem10-16 Aggressiveconduct10 Non-aggressiveconduct10 Hyperactivity10 Emotionalproblems10 Readingscoreat10 Mathsscoreat10 Constant

-.2488 -.2789

.1526 .2354

-.0091 .1724 -.1907

.1164 .1877 .1698

.1166 .1924 .1024

.1364 .1268 .1066

.3036 -.0996 -.0566 .1542 .3109 .2156

.2004 .1430 .0926 .1732 .3273 .3535

-.4431 -.1770 -.1685 -.5036

.2728 .1215 .2327 .4040

.0228 .0836 -.0959

.2849 .1481 .2622

-.0776 .1951

.2255 .3505

.0397 -.0308 .6324**

.2586 .0874 .1823

.2481 .1940

.1770 .1574

.7269** -.1849 .1795 -.2229 -.5174 -1.2386 -.2395 -.0834* -.3165** -.3965** -.8204** -.7677** .0287 -.0444 -.0838* .1672** .1395** .0575 3.1969**

.2597 .1130 .1214 .5146 .4853 1.8698 .8843 .0458 .0621 .0455 .0548 .0411 .0551 .0549 .0487 .0417 .0543 .0575 .3577

78

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Model2:Aggressiveconductatage16 • OLSregression

• Dependentvariable:standardisedaggressiveconductatage16 • Numberofobservations:1,870 • R-squared:0.1803 *anditalicsindicatessignificanceatthe10percentlevel **andbold indicatessignificanceatthe5percentlevel Explanatoryvariable Mother’sage Birthweight(kg) Numberofoldersiblings(comparator:none) One Two Threeormore Sex(comparator:male) Female Householdsocioeconomicstatusatage10(comparator:IorII) IIIman/non-man IV/V missing Householdsocioeconomicstatusatage16(comparator:IorII) IIIman/non-man IV/V missing Father’shighestqual(comparator:none/other) Degree A-level O-level Mother’shighestqual(comparator:none/other) Degree A-level O-level Freeschoolmealsat10 Noparents Nofatherfigureinhousehold Housingtenureatage10(comparator:parents’own) Privaterented Socialhousing Other missing Housingtenureatage16(comparator:parents’own) Privaterented Socialhousing Other missing Father’semploymentstatusat10(comparator:employed) Outofwork Other/missing Mother’semploymentstatusat10(comparator:employed) Unemployed

Coefficient -.0103** .0000

Standarderror .0042 .0000

-.0779* -.0436 .0250

.0420 .0604 .0787

-.0134

.0376

-.0504 .0796 .0969

.0541 .0738 .1095

-.0634 -.0150 -.0133

.0550 .0865 .0785

.0341 .0675 .0227

.0644 .0605 .0509

.0035 .0260 .0306 .1602* .2744* -.0432

.0965 .0676 .0433 .0830 .1610 .1715

-.0749 .1626** .1259 .0341

.1319 .0580 .1112 .1752

.0473 -.0072 -.1728 .0817

.1370 .0716 .1300 .0830

-.2119** .0013

.1062 .1666

.0851

.1190 cont.nextpage

79

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Lookingafterhome Other/missing Father’semploymentstatusat16(comparator:employed) Outofwork Other/missing Mother’semploymentstatusat16(comparator:employed) Unemployed Lookingafterhome Other/missing Father’sattitudedismissiveatage10 Mother’sattitudedismissiveatage10 Father’sattitudehostileatage10 Mother’sattitudehostileatage10 Mother’smalaisescoreat10 Locusofcontrol10 Diffinlocusofcontrol10-16 Self-esteem10 Diffinself-esteem10-16 Aggressiveconduct10 Non-aggressiveconduct10 Hyperactivity10 Emotionalproblems10 Readingscoreat10 Mathsscoreat10 Constant

.0607 -.0195

.0420 .0883

.1166 .0137

.0806 .0728

.1374 .0727 -.0186 -.3540 -.2034 (dropped) .1527 -.0313 -.0560* -.0258 -.0650** -.0379* .3096** .0084 .0410* -.0532** -.0136 -.0056 .1619

.1209 .0511 .0561 .2390 .2569 .5483 .0219 .0300 .0218 .0261 .0195 .0264 .0260 .0230 .0199 .0257 .0272 .1710

Model3:Non-aggressiveconductat16 • OLSregression

• Dependentvariable:standardisednon-aggressiveconductscoreatage16 • Numberofobservations:1,872 • R-squared:0.2272 *anditalics indicatessignificanceatthe10percentlevel **andbold indicatessignificanceatthe5percentlevel Explanatoryvariable Mother’sage Birthweight(kg) Numberofoldersiblings(comparator:none) One Two Threeormore Sex(comparator:male) Female Householdsocioeconomicstatusatage10(comparator:IorII) IIIman/non-man IV/V missing Householdsocioeconomicstatusatage16(comparator:IorII) IIIman/non-man IV/V missing

Coefficient -.0075841* -.0000135

Standarderror .004009 .0000329

-.0175373 -.0066627 .1026854

.0402748 .0579142 .075524

-.035776

.0360677

-.0404451 -.0852165 .1360171

.0518636 .070884 .1050999

-.0369153 -.0329835 .1360171

.0527306 .0829832 .1050999 cont.nextpage

80

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Father’shighestqual(comparator:none/other) Degree A-level O-level Mother’shighestqual(comparator:none/other) Degree A-level O-level Freeschoolmealsat10 Noparents Nofatherfigureinhousehold Housingtenureatage10(comparator:parents’own) Privaterented Socialhousing Other missing Housingtenureatage16(comparator:parents’own) Privaterented Socialhousing Other missing Father’semploymentstatusat10(comparator:employed) Outofwork Other/missing Mother’semploymentstatusat10(comparator:employed) Unemployed Lookingafterhome Other/missing Father’semploymentstatusat16(comparator:employed) Outofwork Other/missing Mother’semploymentstatusat16(comparator:employed) Unemployed Lookingafterhome Other/missing Father’sattitudedismissiveatage10 Mother’sattitudedismissiveatage10 Father’sattitudehostileatage10 Mother’sattitudehostileatage10 Mother’smalaisescoreat10 Locusofcontrol10 Diffinlocusofcontrol10-16 Self-esteem10 Diffinself-esteem10-16 Aggressiveconduct10 Non-aggressiveconduct10 Hyperactivity10 Emotionalproblems10 Readingscoreat10 Mathsscoreat10 Constant

.0294288 .0997951* .0115683

.0618477 .058123 .048783

-.0478001 .0012656 .0266743 -.0183711 -.1335874 .1887442

.092635 .0648086 .0415232 .0796543 .154638 .1646721

-.1676731 .1392519** .1947188* -.0511174

.1266453 .0556517 .1067525 .1682692

.0548381 -.0176652 -.0762784 .0641457

.1315041 .0686444 .1248528 .0753754

.0693694 .0055099

.1019317 .0403298

.1200632 .0055099 .0434481

.1142486 .0403298 .0847536

.1181306 .0283252

.0773667 .0699051

-.0535812 -.0530959 -.009686 -.4914231** .1727229 (dropped) -.1173482 -.0205833 -.1097971** -.087259** -.0525211** -.040516** .0152924 .3183957 .0708814** -.067622** .000907 -.038392 .1305561

.1160542 .0490881 .053821 .2294852 .2466447 .5265493 .0210357 .0288303 .0209363 .0250492 .0187489 .0253728 .0249392 .022128 .0190939 .0246494 .0261997 .1642456

81

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Model4:Hyperactivityat16 • OLSregression

• Dependentvariable:standardisedhyperactivityscoreatage16 • Numberofobservations:1876 • R-squared:0.2695 *anditalicsindicatessignificanceatthe10percentlevel **andbold indicatessignificanceatthe5percentlevel Explanatoryvariable Mother’sage Birthweight(kg) Numberofoldersiblings(comparator:none) One Two Threeormore Sex(comparator:male) Female Householdsocioeconomicstatusatage10(comparator:IorII) IIIman/non-man IV/V missing Householdsocioeconomicstatusatage16(comparator:IorII) IIIman/non-man IV/V missing Father’shighestqual(comparator:none/other) Degree A-level O-level Mother’shighestqual(comparator:none/other) Degree A-level O-level Freeschoolmealsat10 Noparents Nofatherfigureinhousehold Housingtenureatage10(comparator:parents’own) Privaterented Socialhousing Other missing Housingtenureatage16(comparator:parents’own) Privaterented Socialhousing Other missing Father’semploymentstatusat10(comparator:employed) Outofwork Other/missing Mother’semploymentstatusat10(comparator:employed) Unemployed Lookingafterhome Other/missing Father’semploymentstatusat16(comparator:employed) Outofwork

Coefficient .0036 -.0000

Standarderror .0044 .0000

.0208 .1185* .0341

.0442 .0636 .0829

-.0695*

.0396

.0027 -.0077 .2794**

.0571 .0781 .1156

-.1122 .0141* -.0261

.0580 .0913 .0828

.0493 .0469 -.0573

.0681 .0637 .0536

-.1497 -.0681 .0177 .1011 .0116 .1298

.1019 .0712 .0457 .0876 .1701 .1811

-.1038 -.0079 .1100 -.3107

.1392 .0611 .1158 .1850

-.2122 -.0327 .0202 .0048

.1445 .0754 .1361 .0872

-.0192 -.1841

.1121 .1759

-.0176 -.0447 .0015

.1257 .0443 .0926

.0022

.0850 cont.nextpage

82

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Other/missing Mother’semploymentstatusat16(comparator:employed) Unemployed Lookingafterhome Other/missing Father’sattitudedismissiveatage10 Mother’sattitudedismissiveatage10 Father’sattitudehostileatage10(dropped) Mother’sattitudehostileatage10 Mother’smalaisescoreat10 Locusofcontrol10 Diffinlocusofcontrol10-16 Self-esteem10 Diffinself-esteem10-16 Aggressiveconduct10 Non-aggressiveconduct10 Hyperactivity10 Emotionalproblems10 Readingscoreat10 Mathsscoreat10 Constant

-.0505

.0766

.0473 -.0285 .0871 -.3684 .3457

.1276 .0539 .0592 .2524 .2712

-.2860 -.0246 -.0852** -.0838** -.0697** -.0546** .0330 .0396 .4283** -.0749** -.0178 -.0541* .0068

.5790 .0231 .0317 .0230 .0275 .0206 .0279 .0273 .0243 .0210 .0271 .0288 .1805

Model5:Emotionalproblemsat16 • OLSregression

• Dependentvariable:standardisedemotionalproblemscoreatage16 • Numberofobservations:1,871 • R-squared:0.2065 *anditalicsindicatessignificanceatthe10percentlevel **andboldindicatessignificanceatthe5percentlevel Explanatoryvariable Mother’sage Birthweight(kg) Numberofoldersiblings(comparator:none) One Two Threeormore Sex(comparator:male) Female Householdsocioeconomicstatusatage10(comparator:IorII) IIIman/non-man IV/V missing Householdsocioeconomicstatusatage16(comparator:IorII) IIIman/non-man IV/V missing Father’shighestqual(comparator:none/other) Degree A-level O-level Mother’shighestqual(comparator:none/other) Degree A-level

Coefficient .0017 -.0000

Standarderror .0048 .0000

-.0205 -.0615 -.0634

.0484 .0694 .0906

.2612**

.0433

-.0690 -.0298 .0791

.0622 .0853 .1262

.0215 .0341 -.1454

.0633 .0996 .0907

-.0677 -.0192 -.0190

.0743 .0695 .0585

.0820 .1892**

.1112 .0777 cont.nextpage

83

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

O-level Freeschoolmealsat10 Noparents Nofatherfigureinhousehold Housingtenureatage10(comparator:parentsown) Privaterented Socialhousing Other missing Housingtenureatage16(comparator:parentsown) Privaterented Socialhousing Other missing Father’semploymentstatusat10(comparator:employed) Outofwork Other/missing Mother’semploymentstatusat10(comparator:employed) Unemployed Lookingafterhome Other/missing Father’semploymentstatusat16(comparator:employed) Outofwork Other/missing Mother’semploymentstatusat16(comparator:employed) Unemployed Lookingafterhome Other/missing Father’sattitudedismissiveatage10 Mother’sattitudedismissiveatage10 Father’sattitudehostileatage10(dropped) Mother’sattitudehostileatage10 Mother’smalaisescoreat10 Locusofcontrol10 Diffinlocusofcontrol10-16 Self-esteem10 Diffinself-esteem10-16 Aggressiveconduct10 Non-aggressiveconduct10 Hyperactivity10 Emotionalproblems10 Readingscoreat10 Mathsscoreat10 Constant

.0548 -.0804 .1351 .0405

.0498 .0956 .1856 .1977

.0850 -.0443 .0573 -.0959

.1526 .0667 .1270 .2021

-.1873 -.0112 .0320 -.1083

.1607 .0825 .1497 .0952

.0131 -.1636

.1224 .1920

-.1245 .0806* .1568

.1371 .0484 .1017

.1962** .0447

.0928758 .0842626

-.0733 -.0148 .1110* -.1732 -.1852

.1393 .0589 .0646 .2755 .2961

.4329 -.0873** -.0257 -.0645** -.1642** -.1199** -.0301 .0046 .0241 .2977** .0041 -.0522* -.0908

.6320 .0253 .0346 .0251 .0301 .0225 .0305 .0301 .0266 .0230 .0296 .0315 .1970

84

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Table6:Summaryoffindings:emotionalindicatorsatage10associatedwithbehavioural/emotionaloutcomes atage16 Outcome Emotionalindicatorsofimportance Aggressiveconduct •Self-esteematage10: improvementinscoreofonestandarddeviation(SD)associatedwith atage16 6.5%ofoneSDdecrease.Improvementinself-esteemscoresbetween10and16alsoassociatedwith decrease. •Locusofcontrolatage10: improvementinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith5.6%ofoneSD decrease. •Aggressiveconductatage10: increaseinscoreofoneSDassociatedwitha31%ofoneSD increase. •Hyperactivityatage10:increaseinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith4.1%ofoneSDincrease. •Emotionalproblemsatage10: increaseinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith5.3%ofoneSD decrease.Itshouldbenotedthisresultisanomalousandgoesintheoppositedirectiontowhatwe wouldexpect.(Thismaybeduetocollinearitywithothercontrolvariables.) Non-aggressive conductat16

•Self-esteematage10: improvementinscoreofonestandarddeviation(SD)associatedwith 5.2%ofoneSDdecrease.Improvementinself-esteemscoresbetween10and16alsoassociatedwith decrease. •Locusofcontrolatage10:improvementinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith10.9%ofoneSD decrease.Improvementinlocusofcontrolscoresbetween10and16alsoassociatedwithdecrease. •Hyperactivityatage10: increaseinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith7.1%ofoneSDincrease. •Emotionalproblemsatage10: increaseinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith6.8%ofoneSD decrease.Again,thisresultisanomalousandgoesintheoppositedirectiontowhatwewouldexpect.

Hyperactivityat16 •Self-esteematage10:improvementinscoreofonestandarddeviation(SD)associatedwith6.9% ofoneSDdecrease.Improvementinself-esteemscoresbetween10and16alsoassociatedwith decrease. •Locusofcontrolatage10: improvementinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith8.5%ofoneSD decrease.Improvementinlocusofcontrolscoresbetween10and16alsoassociatedwithdecrease. •Hyperactivityatage10: increaseinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith42.8%ofoneSDincrease. •Emotionalproblemsatage10: increaseinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith7.5%ofoneSD decrease.Again,thisresultisanomalousandgoesintheoppositedirectiontowhatwewouldexpect. Emotionalanxiety at16

•Self-esteematage10: improvementinscoreofonestandarddeviation(SD)associatedwith 16.4%ofoneSDdecrease.Improvementinself-esteemscoresbetween10and16alsoassociated withdecrease. •Emotionalproblemsatage10: increaseinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith29.8%ofoneSD increase.

85

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

References AdamsK(2003)‘Abolishjuvenilecurfews’, Criminology&PublicPolicy 6(4):663-669 ADTEurope(2006)Anti-SocialBehaviouracrossEurope London:ADT.Availableat: http://adt.co.uk/cc4471AD-Great-Britain.pdf AebiMF,AromaaK,AubussondeCavarlayB,BarclayG,GruszczyñskaB,HoferHv,HysiV,JehleJ-M, KilliasM,SmitPandTavaresC(2006)EuropeanSourcebookofCrimeandCriminalJusticeStatistics2006TheHague:BoomJuridischeUitgevers AllenJP,PhilliberS,HerrlingSandGabrielKP(1997)‘Preventingteenpregnancyandacademic failure:experimentalevaluationofadevelopmentallybasedapproach’, ChildDevelopment 64:729742 AllenR(2004)RethinkingCrimeandPunishment:Thefinalreport London:EsméeFairbairn Foundation AndaloD(2008)‘Government'struancystrategyafailure,sayLibDems’,TheGuardian,2May, http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2277720,2277700.html AndrewsDAandBontaJ(2003)ThePsychologyofCriminalConduct, 3rdeditionCincinnati,OH: Anderson AosS(2002)Cost-BenefitAnalysisforJuvenileJusticePrograms,ProgramEvaluationBriefingSeries Number4,WashingtonDC:JuvenileJusticeEvaluationCenter AosS,PhippsP,BarnoskiR,andLiebR(2001)TheComparativeCostsandBenefitsofProgramsTo ReduceCrime Olympia:WashingtonStateInstituteforPublicPolicy ArnetteJJ(2004)EmergingAdulthood Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress AshcroftJ,DanielsDJandFloresJR(2004) BlueprintsforViolencePrevention,ReportNCJ204274, Colorado:OfficeofJuvenileJusticeandDelinquencyPrevention.Availableat: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/204274.pdf BaasNJ(2005)Wegennaarhetrechtepad,TheHague:BibliotheekWODC BabbP,ButcherH,ChurchJandZealeyL(2006)SocialTrends36 London:TSO.Availableat: www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/SocialTrends36/Social_Trends_36.pdf BaileyS(2005)NoMan’sLand:HowBritain’sinnercityyoungarebeingfailed London:Centrefor YoungPolicyStudies BalvigF(2001)RisikoUngdom–Youthatrisk Copenhagen:NationalCouncilforCrimePrevention BannisterA,CarterDLandSchaferJ(2001)‘Anationalpolicesurveyontheuseofjuvenilecurfews’, JournalofCriminalJustice 29(3):233-240 BarberBL,EcclesJSandStoneMR(2001)‘Whateverhappenedtothe“Jock”,the“Brain”,andthe “Princess”?:Youngadultpathwayslinkedtoadolescentactivityinvolvementandsocialidentity’, JournalofAdolescentResearch16:429-455 BBC(2008)‘Teenagerdiesinstreetstabbing’,21January,availableat http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7201284.stm BennettAJ,LeschKP,HeilsA,LongJC,LorenzJG,ShoafSE,ChampouxM,SuomiSJ,LinniolaMV andHigleyJD(2002)‘Earlyexperienceandserotonintransportergenevariationinteracttoinfluence primateCNSfunction’,MolecularPsychiatry 7(1):118-122 BennettJandCookeG(eds)(2007) It'sAllAboutYou:Citizen-centredwelfare London:Institutefor PublicPolicyResearch.Availableat:www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=559 BlandenJ,GoodmanA,GreggPandMachinsS(2004)’ChangesinIntergenerationMobility’,inCorak M(ed.)GenerationalIncomeMobility Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress

86

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

BlandenJ(2006)‘“BuckingtheTrend”:whatemablesthosewhoaredisadvantagedinchildhoodto succeedlaterinlife?’DWPWorkingPaper No31London:TSO BontaJ(1997)Offenderrehabilitation:Fromresearchtopractice Ottawa:PublicWorksand GovernmentServicesCanada BorW(2004)‘Preventionandtreatmentofchildhoodandadolescentaggressionandantisocial behaviour:aselectivereview’,AustralianandNewZealandJournalofPsychiatry38(5):373-380 BorduinCM,MannBJ,ConeLT,HenggelerSW,FucciBR,BlaskeDMandWilliamsRA(1995) ‘Multisystematictreatmentofseriousjuvenileoffenders:long-termpreventionofcriminalityand violence’,JournalofConsultingandClinicalPsychology63:569-578 BottomsA(2006)‘Incivilities,offenceandsocialorderinresidentialcommunities’inVonHirschAand SimesterAP(eds)Incivilities:Regulatingoffensivebehaviour,studiesinpenaltheoryandpenalethics HartPublishing:OxfordandPortlandOregon BradshawJ,HoelscherPandRichardsonD(2006)‘Anindexofchildwell-beingintheEuropean Union’,SocialIndicatorsResearch(78)1:1-45 BrembergS(2005)NewToolsforParents:Proposalsfornewformsofparentsupport Östersund: SwedishNationalInstituteofPublicHealth.Availableat: www.fhi.se/upload/14345/16770ParentsEn.pdf BrizendineL(2006)TheFemaleBrain NewYork:Broadway BronfenbrennerU(1979)TheEcologyofHumanDevelopmentCambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity Press BuddT,SharpCandMayhewP(2005)OffendinginEnglandandWales:Firstresultsfromthe2003 CrimeandJusticeSurvey,HomeOfficeresearchstudy275,London:HomeOffice BullockKandJonesB(2004)AcceptableBehaviourContractsaddressingantisocialbehaviourinthe LondonBoroughofIslington London:HomeOffice BynnerJ(2005)‘Rethinkingtheyouthphaseofthelife-course:thecaseforemergingadulthood?’, JournalofYouthStudies 8(4):367-384 BynnerJ,EliasP,McNightA,PanHandPierreG(2002)YoungPeople’schangingroutesto independenceYork:JRF.Availableat:www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/184263108X.pdf CohnLD(1991)‘Sexdifferencesinthecourseofpersonalitydevelopment:ameta-analysis’, PsychologicalBulletin109:252-266 CollishawS,MaughanB,GoodmanRandPicklesA(2004a)‘Affectiveproblemsinadultswithmild learningdisability:therolesofsocialdisadvantageandillhealth’BritishJournalofPsychiatry,185, 350-351 CollishawS,MaughanB,GoodmanRandPicklesA(2004b)‘Timetrendsinadolescentmental health’, JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatry 45(8):1350-1362 Compass(2007)TheCommercialisationofChildhood London:Compass.Availableat http://clients.squareeye.com/uploads/compass/documents/thecommercialisationofchildhood.pdf ContinYou(2005)TakingPart:Makingout-of-school-hourslearninghappenforchildrenincare London:ContinYou CookeGandLawtonK(2008)WorkingOutofPoverty:Astudyofthelow-paidandthe‘working poor’ London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch.Availableat: www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=581 CoteSandHealyT(2001)TheWell-beingofNations.Theroleofhumanandsocialcapital Paris: OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment

87

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

CrimmensD,FactorF,JeffsT,PittsJ,PughC,SpenceJandTurnerP(2004) ReachingSocially ExcludedYoungPeople.Anationalstudyofstreet-basedyouthwork York:JosephRowntree Foundation CunninghamC(1998)‘Alargegroupcommunitybasedfamilysystemsapproachtoparenttrainingin BarkleyR(ed)Attention-DeficitHyperactivityDisorder.Ahandbookfordiagnosisandtreatment New York:TheGuilfordPress CurrieC,RobertsC,MorganA,SmithR,SettertobulteW,SamdalO,andBarnekowRasmussenV (2004)Youngpeople’shealthincontaxt–HealthBehaviourinSchool-agedChildren(HBSC)study: internationalreportfromthe2001/2002surveyWorldHealthOrganization DepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies(DCSF)(2007) TheChildren’sPlan:Buildingbrighter futuresLondon:DCSF.Availableat:www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/childrensplan/downloads/ The_Childrens_Plan.pdf DepartmentforEducationandSkills(DfES)(2005)EarlyImpactsofSureStartLocalProgrammeson ChildrenandFamilies:Nationalevaluationreport London:DfES DepartmentforEducationandSkills(2006a)‘Budgetholdingleadprofessionals:summariesoflocal authoritypilotbids’,webdocument,London:DfES.Availableat: www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/_files/D52CE09A5C95877817DD93E3EA9F5C9F.doc DepartmentforEducationandSkills(2006b)‘Thebudgetholdingleadprofessional:frequentlyasked questions’,webdocument,London:DfES.Availableat: www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/_files/D8678C7CFDD0DC3D54CF1B408C2E3278.doc DixonMandMargoJ(2006) PopulationPolitics London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch. Availableat:www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=341 DixonM,RogersB,ReedHandStoneL(2006)CrimeShare:Theunequalimpactofcrime London: InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch.Availableat:www.ippr.org.uk/members/download.asp?f=per cent2Fecommpercent2Ffilespercent2FCrimeSharepercent2Epdf DouilletA-CandDeMaillardJ(2007)Presentation:Legislativeinnovationandandjuvenilejusticein France,7thAnnualConferenceoftheEuropeanSocietyofCriminology.Bologna:EuropeanSocietyof Criminology EdwardsA,BarnesM,PlewisIandMorrisKetal (2006)WorkingtoPreventtheSocialExclusionof ChildrenandYoungPeople:FinallessonsfromthenationalevaluationoftheChildren’sFund London: DfES EdwardsLandHatchB(2003)PassingTime:Areportaboutyoungpeopleandcommunities London: InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch EpsteinR(2007)TheCaseAgainstAdolescence:RediscoveringtheAdultinEveryTeenSanger,CA: QuillDriver EriksonEH(1950)ChildhoodandSociety NewYork:Norton EriksonEH(1958)YoungManLuther NewYork:Norton EriksonEH(1964)InsightandResponsibility NewYork:Norton EriksonEH(1968)Identity:Youthandcrisis NewYork:Norton EstradaF(2005)‘TheTransformationofthePoliticsofCrimeinHighCrimeSocieties’European JournalofCriminology,1(4),419-443 Farringdon-DouglasJ(2008)YoungOffenders London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch, forthcoming FarringtonD(2007)‘Childhoodriskfactorsandrisk-focussedprevention’inMaguireM,MorganR andReinerR(eds)TheOxfordHandbookofCriminology Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress

88

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

FarringtonD,CoidJW,HarnettL,JoliffeD,SoteriouN,TurnerRandWestDJ(2006)CriminalCareers andLifeSuccess:NewfindingsfromtheCambridgeStudyinDelinquentDevelopment London:Home Office FeinsteinL(2000)TheRelativeEconomicImportanceofAcademic,PsychologicalandBehavioural AttributesDevelopedinChildhood Brighton:UniversityofSussex.Availableat: www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/economics/dp/Feinstein2.pdf FeinsteinLandBynnerJ(forthcoming)TheBenefitsofAssetsinChildhoodasProtectionAgainst AdultSocialExclusion:Therelativeeffectsoffinancial,human,socialandpsychologicalassets, unpublishedmimeo,London:InstituteofEducation FeinsteinL,BynnerJandDuckworthK(2005)LeisureContextsinAdolescenceandtheirEffectson AdultOutcomes London:CentreforResearchontheWiderBenefitsofLearning FeinsteinLandSabatesR(2006)PredictingAdultLifeOutcomesFromEarlierSignals:Identifying thoseatrisk London:CentreforResearchontheWiderBenefitsofLearning Filipčič K(2004)NationalReportonJuvenileCriminallawinSlovenia Ljubljana:Universityof Ljubljana FriedCS(2001)‘Juvenilecurfews:aretheyaneffectiveandconstitutionalmeansofcombating juvenileviolence?’,BehaviouralSciencesandtheLaw 19(1):127-141 FurlongA,CartmelF,BiggartA,SweetingHandWestP(2003)YouthTransitions:Patternsof vulnerabilityandprocessesofsocialinclusion Edinburgh:ScottishExecutive GammageP(1975)Socialisation,SchoolingandLocusofControl,unpublishedPhDthesis,Bristol: UniversityofBristol. GaviriaAandRaphaelS(1997)School-BasedPeerEffectsandJuvenileBehavior, Economicsworking paperseries97-21,DepartmentofEconomics,SanDiego:UCSanDiego GelsthorpeLandBurneyE(2007)Parentingascrimecontrol:acritiqueofgovernmentpolicy, 7th AnnualConferenceoftheEuropeanSocietyofCriminology.Bologna:EuropeanSocietyofCriminology GerovaV(2005)EnhancingtheBCS7016-yearHeadTeacherSchoolLevelDataset,BCSdatanote1, London:CentreforLongitudinalStudies,InstituteofEducation GibbinsCandJulianG(2006)FamilySpending:Areportonthe2004/-05ExpenditureandFood SurveyLondon:TSO GieddJN,BlumenthalJ,JeffriesNO,CastellanosFX,LiuH,ZijdenbosA,PausT,EvansACand RaporportJ(1999)‘Braindevelopmentduringchildhoodandadolescence:alongitudinalMRIstudy’, NatureNeuroscience2:861-863 GillT(2007)NoFear:GrowingupinariskaversesocietyLondon:CalousteGulbenkian GoldbergE(2001)TheExecutiveBrain:Frontallobesandthecivilizedmind NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress GoodmanAandButlerN(1986)BCS70–The1970BritishCohortStudy:Thesixteenyearfollow-up London:SocialStatisticsResearchUnit,CityUniversity GordonDA,GravesK,andArbuthnotJ(1995)‘TheEffectofFunctionalFamilyTherapyfor DelinquentsonAdultCriminalBehavior’CriminalJusticeandBehavior, 22(1),60-73 GouldE,TanapatP,McEwanBS,FluggeG,GrossCGandFuchsE(1998)‘Proliferationofgranulecell precursorsinthedentategyrusofadultmonkeysisdiminishedbystress’,ProceedingsoftheNational AcademyofSciences 95:3168-3171 GrayPandSeddonT(2005)‘Preventionworkwithchildrendisaffectedfromschool’, Health Education105(1)62-72

89

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

GrossmanJBandTierneyJP(1998)‘Doesmentoringwork?AnimpactstudyoftheBigBrothersBig SistersProgram’, EvaluationReview 22:403-426 HahnRA,LowyJ,BilukhaO,SnyderS,BrissP,CrosbyA,FulliloveMT,TumaF,MoscickiEK,Liberman A,SchofieldAandCorsoPS(2004)TherapeuticFosterCareforthePreventionofViolence:AReport onRecommendationsoftheTaskForceonCommunityPreventiveServices Washington,DC:Centers forDiseaseControlandPrevention HainesK(2007)JuvenileJusticeinWales,7thAnnualConferenceoftheEuropeanSocietyof Criminology.Bologna:EuropeanSocietyofCriminology HalpernD(2001)‘Moralvalues,socialtrustandinequality–canvaluesexplaincrime?’, British JournalofCriminology 41:236-251 Hansard(2007)HCseries5,vol455,col1665(25January2007) HanssonK(2001)FamiljebehandlingpåGodaGrunder.Enforskningsbaseradoversikt Stockholm: Gothia HarrisLJ(2006)‘AnEmpiricalStudyofParentalResponsibilityLaws:SendingMessages,butWhat KindandtoWhom?’ UtahLawReview, Vol.2006,No.1 HeckmanJ,StixrudJandUrzuaS(2006)TheEffectsofCognitiveandNoncognitiveAbilitiesonLabor MarketOutcomesandSocialBehaviour, workingpaper12006,Cambridge,MA:NationalBureauof EconomicResearch HellströmA(2005)TheCommunityParentEducationProgram(COPE). Powerpointpresentation givento6thIUPHEEuropeanConferenceontheEffectivenessandQualityofHealthPromotion, Stockholm,June1–4.Availableat:www.fhi.se/upload/BestPractice/FR5103_AHellström.ppt HenggelerSWandBorduinCM(1990)FamilyTherapyandBeyond:Amultisystemicapproachto treatingthebehaviourproblemsofchildrenandadolescents PacificGrove,CA:Brooks/Cole HomeOffice(2008)CrimeinEnglandandWales:QuarterlyUpdatetoDecember2007.04/08 London:HomeOffice HomeOffice(2006)CrimeinEnglandandWales2006/07 London:TSO HomeOffice(2006b)RespectActionPlan.London:COIAvailableat: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/respect-action-plan?view=Binary HomeOffice(2005)Offending,CrimeandJusticeSurvey London:TSO HomeOffice(2003)TacklingAnti-SocialBehaviourTogether London:TSO HomelR(2005)‘Developmentcrimeprevention’inTilleyN(ed)HandbookofCrimePreventionand CommunitySafety Devon:Willan HoughMandParkA(2002)‘Howmalleableareattitudestocrimeandpunishment?Findingsfroma Britishdeliberativepoll’inRobertsJandHoughMike(eds)ChangingAttitudestoPunishment:Public opinion,crimeandjustice Uffculme:WillanPublishing HughesBandCookeG(2007)‘Children,parentingandfamilies:renewingtheprogressivestory’in MargoJandPearceN(eds)PoliticsforaNewGeneration Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan InceD,BeumerM,JonkmanHandVergeerM(2004)VeelbelovendenEffectief,Overzichtvan Preventieprojectenen-Programma’sindeDomeinenGezin,School,KinderenenJongeren,Wijk. Utrecht:NIZW InnesM(2004)‘Signalcrimesandsignaldisorders’,BritishJournalofSociology55:335-355 InstituteofPsychiatry(2007)‘Childmentalhealthissuesneedtobeaddressed’.Availableat www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/news/?id=179 InternationalCentreforPrisonStudies(2007)Dataavailableatwww.prisonstudies.org/

90

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

JakobiS,AllenR,CrookF,FarrowG,GoldsonB,HamiltonC,LawsonA,ThomasMandWilliamsK (2007)‘TheBritishapproachtoveryyoungoffendersisinappropriate’,lettertotheeditor,TheTimes, October19 JamesO(1995)Juvenileviolenceinawinner-loserculture:socio-economicandfamilialoriginsofthe riseinviolenceagainsttheperson London:FreeAssociation JamesO(2000)‘ConsumingMisery’TheEcologistMagazine,May.Availableat: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2465/is_3_30/ai_62794138 JohnsonAM,MercerCH,ErensB,CopasAJ,McManusS,WellingsK,FentonKA,KorovessisC, MacDowallW,NanchahalK,PurdonSandFieldH(2001)‘SexualbehaviourinBritain:partnerships, practicesandHIVriskbehaviours’,TheLancet 358(9296):1835-1842 JonesG(2005)TheThinkingandBehaviourofYoungAdults:LiteraturereviewfortheODPM London: TSO JordanWJandNettlesSM(2000)‘Howstudentsinvesttheirtimeoutsideofschool:theeffecton school-relatedoutcomes’,SocialPsychologyofEducation 3:217-243 Junger-TasJ(2006)‘Trendsininternationaljuvenilejustice:Whatconclusionscanbedrawn?’,inJ. Junger-TasandSHDecker(Eds.)InternationalHandbookofJuvenileJustice Dordrecht:Springer KeaneyE(2006)FromAccesstoParticipation:Culturalpolicyandcivilrenewal London:Institutefor PublicPolicyResearch KeaneyEandRogersB(2006)ACitizen’sDuty:Voterinequalityandthecaseforcompulsoryturnout London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch KernsSEUandPrinzRJ(2002)‘CriticalissuesinthepreventionofViolence-relatedbehaviourin youth’,ClinicalChildandFamilyPsychologyReview 5(2):133-160 KhanHandMuirR(eds)(2006)StickingTogether:Socialcapitalandlocalgovernment London: InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch KivivuoriJandSalmiV(2005)TrendsinSelf-ReportedJuvenileDelinquencyinFinland1995-2004, publicationNo214,Helsinki:NationalResearchInstituteofLegalPolicy KraemerGW,EbertMH,SchmidtDEandMcKinneyWT(1998)‘Alongitunalstudyoftheeffectof differentsocialrearingconditionsoncerebrospinalfluidnorepinephrineandbiogenicamine metabolitesinrhesusmonkeys’,Neuropsychopharmacology 2:175-189 LarsonRW(2000)‘Towardsapsychologyofpositiveyouthdevelopment’,AmericanPsychologist 55 (1):170-183 LarsonRW,WalkerK,PearceN(2005)‘Acomparisonofyouth-drivenandadult-drivenyouth programs:balancinginputsfromyouthandadults’,JournalofCommunityPsychology33(1):57-74 LawrenceD(1973)ImprovedReadingThroughCounselling London:WardLock LawrenceD(1981)‘Thedevelopmentofaself-esteemquestionnaire’,BritishJournalofEducational Psychology51(2):529-538 LaytonMacKenzieD(2006)WhatWorksinCorrections:ReducingtheCriminalActivitiesofOffenders andDelinquents NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress LewinsohnP,RobertsR,SeeleyJ,RohdeP,GotlibIandHopsH(1994)‘Adolescentpsychopathology: IIpsychosocialriskfactorsfordepression’,JournalofAbnormalPsychology103:302–315 LewisM(2007)StatesofReason:Freedom,responsibilityandthegoverningofbehaviourchange London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch LibscombS(2005)SecondarySchoolExtracurricularInvolvementandAcademicAchievement:Afixed effectapproach,unpublishedpaper

91

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

LipseyMW(1992)‘Juveniledelinquencytreatment:Ameta-analyticinquiryintothevariabilityof effects’inCookTD,CooperH,CordrayDS,HartmannH,HedgesLV,LightRJ,LouisTAandMosteller F(eds)Meta-analysisforExplanation:Acaseboo, NewYork:RussellSage LyonsC(2000)LovingSmackorLawfulAssault?Acontradictioninhumanrightsandlaw London: InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch McAraLandMcVieS(2007)‘YouthJustice?:TheImpactofSystemContactonPatternsof DesistancefromOffending’EuropeanJournalofCriminology,4(3),315-345 MacBethJ,KirmanT,MyersK,McCallJ,SmithI,McKateE,SharpC,BhabraS,WeindlingDand PocklingtonK(2001)TheImpactofStudySupport:Areportofalongitudinalstudyintotheimpactof participationinout-of-school-hourslearningontheacademicattainmentattitudesandschool attendanceofsecondaryschoollearners London:DfES MacDonaldRandMarshJ(2005)DisconnectedYouth?GrowingupinBritain’spoorneighbourhoods Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan MacDonaldR(ed)(1997)Youth,theUnderclassandSocialExclusion London:Routledge MahoneyJL(2000)‘Participationinschoolextracurricularactivitiesasamoderatorinthe developmentofantisocialpatterns’,ChildDevelopment 71:502-516 MahoneyJLandCairnsRB(1997)‘Doextracurricularactivitiesprotectagainstearlyschooldropout?’, DevelopmentalPsychology 33(2):241-253 MahoneyJL,LarsonRWandEccles(2005)OrganizedActivitiesasContextsofDevelopment: Extracurricularactivities,afterschoolandcommunityprogramsPhiladelphia:LawrenceErlbaum Associates MargoJandDixonM,withPearceNandReedH(2006)Freedom’sOrphans:Raisingyouthina changingworld London:InstituteofPublicPolicyResearch MargoJandSodhaS(2007)GetHappy:Childrenandyoungpeople’semotionalwellbeing London: NCH MayoE(2005) ShoppingGeneration London:NationalConsumerCouncil McIntoshH,MetzEandYounissJ(2005)‘Communityserviceandidentityformationinadolescence’ inMahoneyJL,LarsonRWandEccles(eds)OrganizedActivitiesasContextsofDevelopment: Extracurricularactivities,afterschoolandcommunityprograms Philadelphia:LawrenceErlbaum Associates McKendrickJ,BradfordMandFielderA(2000)‘Kidcustomer!Commercialisationofplayspaceand thecommodificationofchildhood’,Childhood 7:295-314 MeltzerH,GatwardR,GoodmanRandFordT(2000)TheMentalHealthofChildrenandAdolescents inGreatBritain:Summaryreport London:NationalStatistics MolinaAMDandSowersKM(2005)‘SecondaryPreventionforYouthViolence:AReviewofSelected School-BasedPrograms’BriefTreatmentandCrisisIntervention,5(1),95-107 NationalAuditOffice(2007)TheHomeOffice:Tacklinganti-socialbehaviourLondon:HSO NationalFamilyandParentingInstitute(NFPI)(2004)HardSell:Softtargets London:NFPI NeeCandEllisT(2005)‘Treatingoffendingchildren:whatworks?’,LegalandCriminological Psychology10:1-16 Nestlé(2006)MakeSpaceforYoungPeople:Nestléfamilymonitor, London:NestléUKLtd.Available at:www.4children.org.uk/uploads/information/NestleFamilyMonitor.pdf NewsonJandNewsonE(1972)PatternsofInfantCareinanUrbanCommunity London:Penguin NicholasS,PoveyD,WalkerAandKershawC(2005)CrimeinEnglandandWales2004/2005 London:TSO

92

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

Ofcom(2006)MediaLiteracyAudit:Reportonmedialiteracyamongchildren London:Ofcom OldsDL,HillPL,O’BrienR,RacineDandMoritzP(2003)‘Takingpreventiveinterventiontoscale: Thenurse-familypartnership’,CognBehavPract.2003Fall;10(4):278-90 OlssonT,LeifmanH,SundellKandHanssonK(2008)‘Effectiveservicesforalcoholanddrugabusing youth:perspectivesfromSweden’,inStevensA(Ed.)CrossingFrontiers:InternationalDevelopments intheTreatmentofDrugDependence.Brighton:PavilionPublishing OgdenTandHagenKA(2006)‘Multisystemictreatmentofseriousbehaviourproblemsinyouth: sustainabilityofeffectivenesstwoyearsafterintake’,ChildandAdolescentMentalHealth11(3):142149 PageBandWallaceE(2004) Families,ChildrenandYoungPeople–KeyIssues.Findingsfromrecent MORIstudies London:MORI PearceN(2007)‘Crimeandpunishment:anewagenda’inPearceNandMargoJ(eds)Politicsfora NewGeneration:TheprogressivemomentBasingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan PearceNandMargoJ(2007)PoliticsforaNewGeneration:TheprogressivemomentBasingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan PearceNandPaxtonW(eds)(2005)SocialJustice:BuildingafairerBritain London:Institutefor PublicPolicyResearch/Politicos PetersiliaJandTurnerS(1993)‘Intensiveprobationandparole’,CrimeandJustice 17:281-335 PetrosinoA,TurpinPetrosinoCandBuehlerJ(2003)‘Scaredstraightandotherjuvenileawareness programsforpreventingjuveniledelinquency:asystematicreviewoftherandomizedexperimental evidence’,TheAnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyofPoliticalandSocialScience 589(1):41-61 PittsJ(2005)‘Noboundaries–theanti-socialbehaviourindustryandyoungpeople’,Community SafetyJournal4(4):23-33 QuilgarsQ,SearleBandKeungA(2005)‘Mentalhealthandwell-being’inBradshawBandMayhew E(eds)TheWell-beingofChildrenintheUK (2ndedn)London:SavetheChildren RankinJ(2005)MentalHealthintheMainstream London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch RobinsonMB(2004)WhyCrime?AnIntegratedSystemsTheoryofAntisocialBehaviourUpperSaddle River,NJ:PrenticeHall RodgersB,PicklesA,PowerC,CollishawSandMaughanB(1999)‘Validityofthemalaiseinventory ingeneralpopulationsamples’,SocialPsychiatryandPsychiatricEpidemiology 34:333-341 RogersB(2005)NewDirectionsinCommunityJustice London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch RosenbergM,SchoolerCandSchoenbachC(1989)‘Self-esteemandadolescentproblems:modeling reciprocaleffects’,AmericanSociologicalReview 54(6):1004-1018 RotterJ(1954)SocialLearningandClinicalPsychology NewYork:PrenticeHall RutterM,TizardJandWhitmoreK(1970)Education,HealthandBehaviour London:Longmans SampsonR,RaudenbushSandEarlsF(1997)‘Neighbourhoodsandviolentcrime:amultilevelstudy ofcollectiveefficacy’citedinHalpernD(1999)SocialCapital:Thenewgoldengoose,unpublished paper,Cambridge:FacultyofSocialandPoliticalSciences,CambridgeUniversity SampsonRJ(1999)‘Whatcommunitysupplies’inFergusonRandDickensW(eds)UrbanProblems andCommunityDevelopment WashingtonDC:Brookings SampsonRJandGrovesW(1989)‘Communitystructureandcrime:testingsocial-disorganization theory’, TheAmericanJournalofSociology94(4):774-802 SampsonRJandLaubJH(1993)CrimeintheMaking:Pathwaysandturningpointsthroughlife London:HarvardUniversityPress

93

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

SchorJ(2004)BorntoBuy:Thecommercializedchildandthenewconsumerculture NewYork: Scribner SchorJandHoltD(eds)(2000)TheConsumerSocietyReader NewYork:TheNewPress SchweinhartL,MontieJ,XiangJ,BarnettZ,BelfieldCR,NoresM(2004)LifetimeEffects:The High/ScopePerryPreschoolStudythroughage40 Ypsilanti,MI:High/ScopePress SchweinhartLJ(2004)TheHigh/ScopePerryPreschoolStudyThroughAge40:Summary, conclusions,andfrequentlyaskedquestions Ypsilanti,MI:High/ScopePress.Availableat: www.highscope.org/Research/PerryProject/PerryAge40_SumWeb.pdf SextonTLandAlexanderJF(2000)‘Functionalfamilytherapy(FFT)’,OJJDPJuvenileJusticeBulletin, December2000.Availableat:www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/184743.pdf SharpC,AldridgeJandMedinaJ(2006)Delinquentyouthgroupsandoffendingbehaviour:findings fromthe2004Offending,CrimeandJusticeSurvey. HomeOfficeonlinereport14/06London:TSO. Availableat:www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr1406.pdf SheidowAJ,BradfordWD,HenggelerSW,RowlandMD,Halliday-BoykinsC,SchoenwaldSKandWard DM(2004)‘Treatmentcostsforyouthsreceivingmultisystemictherapyorhospitalizationaftera psychiatriccrisis’,PsychiatricServices 55(5):548-554 ShepherdP(1997)‘Surveyandresponse’inBynnerJ,FerriEandShepherdP(eds)GettingOn, GettingBy,GettingNowhere:Twenty-somethinginthe1990s Aldershot:Ashgate Sigle-RushtonW(2004)IntergenerationalandLife-CourseTransmissionofSocialExclusioninthe 1970BritishCohortStudy London:CentrefortheAnalysisofSocialExclusion,LondonSchoolof Economics SimonsR,SimonsLG,HarbinBurtC,BrodyGHandCutronaC(2005)‘Collectiveefficacy, authoritativeparentinganddelinquency:alongitudinaltestofamodelofintegratingcommunityand familylevelprocesses’,Criminology 43:989 SmithDJandMcVie(2003)‘TheoryandmethodintheEdinburghStudyofYouthTransitionsand Crime’,TheBritishJournalofCriminology 43:169-195 SocialExclusionTaskForce(2006)ReachingOut:Anactionplanonsocialexclusion London:Cabinet Office SodhaSandMargoJ(2008)TheFutureSchoolLondon:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch (forthcoming) SowellER,ThompsonPM,HolmesCJ,JerniganTLandTogaAW(1999)‘Invivoevidenceforpostadolescentbrainmaturationinfrontalandstriatalregions’,NatureNeuroscience 2:859-861 StanleyK(ed)(2005)DaddyDearest?Activefatherhoodandpublicpolicy London:InstituteforPublic PolicyResearch StattinH,KerrM,MahoneyJ,PerssonAandMagnussonD(2005)‘Explainingwhyaleisurecontextis badforsomegirlsandnotforothers’inMahoneyJL,LarsonRWandEcclesJS(eds)Organized ActivitiesasContextsforDevelopmentLondon:LawrenceElbaum SteinhausenHC(2006)‘Developmentalpsychopathologyinadolescence:findingsfromaSwissstudy –theNAPELecture2005’,ActaPsychiatricaScandinavia 113:6–12 SteinhausenH-CandWinklerMetzkeC(2001)‘Adolescentself-rateddepressivesymptomsinaSwiss epidemiologicalstudy’,JournalofYouthandAdolescence 29:427–440 StevensA,KesslerIandGladstoneB(2006)AReviewofGoodPracticesinPreventingJuvenileCrime intheEuropeanUnionEuropeanCommunities,reportpreparedfortheEuropeanCommission StevensA,KesslerIandSteinackK(2006)ReviewofEffectivePracticeinPreventingtheVariousTypes ofViolenceintheEuropeanUnion Brussels:EuropeanCommission

94

ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime

StevensAWandGladstoneBM(2002)Learning,NotOffending:Effectiveinterventionstotackleyouth transitiontocrimeinEurope Westerham:RPSRainer StussDTandAlexanderMP(2000),‘Executivefunctionsandthefrontallobes:aconceptualview’, PsychologicalResearch63(3-4):289-298 TremblayRE(2004)‘Thedevelopmentofhumanaggression:Howimportantisearlychildhood?’in HallDMB,LeavittAandFoxNA(eds)SocialandMoralDevelopment:Emergingevidenceonthe toddleryears NewBrunswick,NJ:JohnsonandJohnson TuffinR,MorrisJandPooleA(2006)TheNationalReassurancePolicingProgramme:Asix-site evaluation,HomeOfficeresearchstudy296,London:HomeOffice TylerTRandBoeckmannRJ(1997)‘Threestrikesandyouareout,butwhy?:thepsychologyof publicsupportforpunishingrulebreakers’,LawandSocietyReview31:237-265 UNICEF(2007)TheStateoftheWorld’sChildren2007 NewYork:UNICEF UttingD,MonteiroHandGhateD(2007)InterventionsforChildrenatRiskofDevelopingAntisocial PersonalityDisorder,London:PolicyResearchBureau vanDijkJ,ManchinR,vanKesterenJ,NevalaS,andHidegG(2005)EUICSReport:TheBurdenof CrimeintheEUBrussels:GallupEurope VidmarNandEllsworthP(1973)‘Publicopinionandthedeathpenalty’,StanfordLawReview 26: 1245-1270 WacquantL(1999)‘HowpenalcommonsensecomestoEuropeans:notesonthetransatlantic diffusionoftheneo-liberaldoxa’,EuropeanSocieties1(3):319–352 WaldfogelJ(2006)‘WhatChildrenNeed’, PublicPolicyResearch,volume13,issue1 WalkerA,KershawCandNicholasS(2006)CrimeinEnglandandWales2005/06 London:TSO. Availableat:www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1206.pdf WeatherburnDandLindB(2001)Delinquent-ProneCommunities Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press WellingsK,NanchahalKM,McManusS,ErensB,MercerC,JohnsonA,CopasA,KorovessisC,Fenton K,andFieldJ(2001)‘SexualbehaviourinBritain:Earlyheterosexualexperience’TheLancet WelshBCandFarringtonDP(2004)‘Surveillanceforcrimepreventioninpublicspace:resultsand policychoicesinBritainandAmerica’,Criminology&PublicPolicy3(3):497-526 WoodM(2004)PerceptionsandExperienceofAntisocialBehaviour:Findingsfromthe2003/2004 BritishCrimeSurvey,HomeOfficeonlinereport49/04,London:TSO WoodM(2005)PerceptionsandExperienceofAntisocialBehaviour:Findingsfromthe2003/2004 BritishCrimeSurvey,HomeOfficeonlinereport49/04,London:TSO,availableat: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr4904.pdf WyvekensA(2004a)‘Whatworksinreducingcrime’,ChampPénal,November.Availableat: http://champpenal.revues.org/document68.html WyvekensA(2004b)TheFrenchJuvenileJusticeSystem.EuropeanSocietyofCriminologyWorking GrouponJuvenileJustice.Availableat:www.esc-eurocrim.org/files/french_juvenile_justice.doc YouthJusticeBoard(2006)ASummaryofResearchintoAnti-SocialBehaviourOrdersGiventoYoung PeopleBetweenJanuary2004andJanuary2005 London:YouthJusticeBoard YouthJusticeScotland(2008)ServicesforYoungPeopleWhoOffend.Availableat: www.youthjusticescotland.gov.uk/theme.asp?ID=13