Towards A Popular Preventative Youth Justice System

WWW.IPPR.ORG

TowardsaPopular, PreventativeYouth JusticeSystem byJoeFarrington-DouglaswithLuciaDurante July 2009 ©ippr2009

InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch Challengingideas– Changingpolicy

2

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Contents Aboutippr ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Abouttheauthors................................................................................................................................ 3 Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................................. 3 Executivesummary ............................................................................................................................. 4 1.Introduction–whyweneedanewapproachtoyouthjustice ...................................................... 7 2.Ataleoftwotargets–whyanewapproachisneeded................................................................ 12 3.Objectives,barriersto,andnewprinciplesofyouthjustice.......................................................... 20 4.Cananewdirectionbepreventative? ........................................................................................... 26 5.Willthepublicsupportpopularpreventionism?............................................................................ 38 6.Conclusion...................................................................................................................................... 43 Annex1:Deliberativeworkshopmethodology ................................................................................ 45 Annex2:Deliberativeworkshopsdiscussionguide ........................................................................... 47 Annex3:Breakdownofparticipants ................................................................................................ 56 Annex4:Workshopparticipants’reactionstocertainelementsofippr’sproposedapproaches toyouthjustice ............................................................................................................................ 57 References.................................................................................................................................. 58

3

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Aboutippr TheInstituteforPublicPolicyResearch(ippr)istheUK’sleadingprogressivethinktank,producing cutting-edgeresearchandinnovativepolicyideasforajust,democraticandsustainableworld. Since1988,wehavebeenattheforefrontofprogressivedebateandpolicymakingintheUK.Through ourindependentresearchandanalysiswedefinenewagendasforchangeandprovidepractical solutionstochallengesacrossthefullrangeofpublicpolicyissues. WithofficesinbothLondonandNewcastle,weensureouroutlookisasbroad-basedaspossible, whileourinternationalandmigrationteamsandclimatechangeprogrammeextendourpartnerships andinfluencebeyondtheUK,givingusatrulyworld-classreputationforhighqualityresearch. ippr,30-32SouthamptonStreet,LondonWC2E7RA.Tel:+44(0)2074706100E:[email protected] www.ippr.org.RegisteredCharityNo.800065 ThispaperwasfirstpublishedinJuly2009.©ippr2009

Abouttheauthors JoeFarrington-DouglaswasaResearchFellowatippr. LuciaDuranteisaResearcheratippr.

Acknowledgements ipprisgratefultotheBarrowCadburyTrust,HelenHamlynTrustandLordSainsburyfortheirsupport. Theauthorswouldliketothankpresentandformercolleaguesatipprforhelpfulcommentsand support,includingJuliaMargo,JamesCrabtree,SophieMoullin,NaomiJones,RuthSheldon,Karl Hallam,GeorginaKyriacou,KellyO’Sullivan,JeremyCushing,DannySriskandarajah,CatherineBithell, JillRutter,RichardBrooksandNickPearce.TheauthorswouldalsoliketothankRobAllen,Kieran Brett,RodMorgan,DeeO’Connell,PaulMaltby,IvanCollister,ChrisStanley,PenelopeGibbsand DavidSmithforhelpandadviceduringtheresearch.Wewouldalsoliketothankallthoseinvolvedin theresearchvisitsinDenmarkandScotland,andparticipantsinthedeliberativeworkshops.

4

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Executivesummary In1998Labourmadesignificantreformstotheyouthjusticesystem.Adecadelater,thesehaveyetto deliverasystemwhichputscrimereductionatitsheart.Thisfailuretoreduceoffendingderivesat leastpartlyfromadeterminationtobringmoreoffencestojustice.Thisinturnseemstoberootedin thebelief,widespreadamongthepublic,thattheanswerisamorepunitiveapproachtooffending. Quitesimply,thishasnotworkedandthecurrentyouthjusticesystemdoesnotreduceoffending. Thisreportproposeswaysinwhichitcould,aswellaswaysofcreatingpublicconfidenceinthe system.Itincludesproposalsforearlyinterventionforpreventativepurposes,aswellasforthe extensionofthesystemtosomeofthoseinthe18-21agegroup.

Youthcrime:anunsolvedproblem Mostyoungpeoplearelaw-abiding.Butsomecommitcrime.Asmallernumberbecomesevereand repeatoffenders.Whilecrimeoverallhasfallen,theproportionofcrimecommittedbyyoungpeopleis likelytoberising.Publicconcernovercrimeinvolvingyoungpeople–whetherrecenthigh-profile knifecrimes,orgeneralconcernoveranti-socialstreetbehaviour–isalsorising.Andcontinuingmedia attentioncreatesaclimateinwhichpoliticiansstillfeelunderpressuretointroducetoughlooking,but oftenineffective,andevencounter-productive,schemestocombatcrimeamongyoungpeople.In spiteofthis,thepublicdoesnotknowmuchaboutthecriminaljusticesystem,andtheirconfidencein itislow. Thebehaviourofyoungpeoplereflectsawidersetofchallengesaboutthetransitiontoadulthoodin contemporarysociety.Youthoffendingcontinuestohaveseveresocialconsequences,foritsvictims, theircommunities,andforoffendersthemselves.Itremainsaparticularproblemindisadvantaged areas.Andsignificantly,thesmallnumberofprolificoffenderswhocausesignificantcrimeand concernoverwhelminglycomefrompoorerbackgrounds.

Currentpolicyisnotworking Weknowwhathasnotworkedfromthepoliciesofthelast10years.‘Coercive’approachesthataim todeteroffendersthroughtoughsanctionstendnottowork.Targetsaimedatreducingoffendingby targetingoffenders(the‘offencesbroughttojustice’[OBTJ]targets)haveencouragedagreaterfocus ofpoliceandthecourtsonyoungoffenders.Probablyasaconsequence,wehaveseenincreasesin thenumberofyoungpeopledrawnintotheyouthjusticesystemforlessseriousoffending.Asmore minoroffendershavebeenbroughtin,theabilityofthesystemtotacklefutureoffendinghas reduced.Andallofthishashappenedatatimeofincreasedmediainterestinyouthcrime,combined withstrongercompetitionbetweenpoliticalpartiesontheissue,sothatsensiblereformsaremore difficulttomake.Theresult?Thethresholdatwhichyoungpeoplearedrawnintothecriminaljustice systemisnowlower,whichresultsingreaternumbersbeingprocessedthroughpolicestationsand courts,andalsorisingnumbersincustody. Thisprocessisknowntohavesomeperverseeffects.Arrestingyoungpeopledoesnottendtostop themreoffending–infactthereversemaybethecase–andputtingchildreninprisoncanbevery damaging. Theincreaseinthenumberschargedandpunishedalsoincreasespublicanxietyaboutyouth offending,andmayperverselycontributetoyetmorepunitive,andyetmorecounter-productive, policymaking.Inthemeantime,asthepolicepursuetheOBTJtargets,thetargetforreducingreoffendinghasnotbeenmet.

Anewmomentforreform? Despitethis,behindLabour’sdrivesfortoughnessamoreeffective,moreprogressivestrandtoits youthoffendingpolicycanclearlybeseenandmayevenbegainingground.The1998reformsaimed toputpreventionofcrimeattheheartofyouthjustice.TheGovernmenthasalsorecognisedthat someofitstoughtargetswerenotworking,andchangedthem.GivingtheDepartmentforChildren, SchoolsandFamiliesresponsibilityforyouthjusticejointlywiththeMinistryofJusticehelpedtoplace

5

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

thewelfareofyoungpeoplemorefirmlyontheyouthjusticeagenda.TheChildren’sPlancontaineda rangeofmeasurestohelpyoungpeopleavoidcrime,includinganewfocusonpositive,structured activities.TheYouthCrimeActionPlantoneddowntherhetoric,andintroducedarangeofhelpful measurestoimprovethesystem1.And,justasimportantly,theConservativepartyismovingtowards viewsoncrimeandyouthjusticethataremoreinlinewiththeevidenceofwhatdoesanddoesnot work. ThiscombinationofamoreenlightenedapproachfromtheGovernmentandanewapproachfromthe Conservativessuggeststhatanewmomentforreformmightbepossible.Allpartiesshouldtake advantageofthis:thepreventionofyouthcrime,andthedevelopmentofeffectivemeasurestohelp someyoungpeopleawayfromalifeofcrime,shouldbetopprioritiesforanypartyprofessingtocare aboutajustsociety.

Anewapproachcanpreventyouthcrime ThisreportrecommendsanapproachwhichissimilartothatinScotlandinbeingpreventative,tiered, anddiversionary. Inpreviousreports2,ipprhasmaderecommendationswhichstressprevention andanewfocuson youthwork.Webelievethatmorecanbedoneinthewayofremovingthecausesofoffendingin localcommunitiesifthosecommunitiesareempoweredtodoso:soourproposalsincludemeasuresto preventoffendingaswellasdealingwithitafterithasoccurred.Thesemeasuresshouldbeentrusted tolocalpartnerships,probablywithschoolsattheirheart. Wealsoarguethatresponsestoyouthmisbehaviourshouldbegraduatedsoastobeproportionateat eachlevelofoffendingandstartearly,assoonasthefirstsignsthatyoungpeopleareatriskof offendingappear.Wedonotbelievethatthepresentsystemdifferssufficientlyinthewaysit addresseslow-level,occasionalanti-socialbehaviourandoffendingfromthewayitdealswithserious orpersistentoffending.Anewsystemshouldbetiered,startingwithpreventativemeasurestaken evenwithveryearlysignsofoffendingbehaviourandreachinguptomeasuresappropriatetoyoung peoplebeyondthepresentcut-offof17. Themeasuresproposedarediversionary becausetheyprovideforamuchhigherproportionofyoung peoplewhomisbehavetobedealtwithotherthanthrougharrestandthecriminalcourtssystem. Theyinvolvethecreationofanumberofnewinstitutions,broadlyaimedatempoweringthe community,usingrestorativejusticeprinciplesanddealingwithnon-seriousoffendingotherthan througharrest.TheyalsoproposeanalternativeformofScottish-stylecivilyouthcourt,againaimed atreducingthenumberofyoungpeoplewhogothroughthecriminalcourtssystem,andmake suggestionsastohowtheexisting(criminal)youthcourtscanbemademoreeffectiveandfocused morecloselyontheaimofreducingoffending.

Carefulcommunicationcanbuildpublicsupport Muchofthiswillbepoliticallyimpracticableunlessthepubliccanbebroughttobelievethatthe increasedfocusonpreventionandonmethodsalternativetothecriminalcourtsisactuallyan appropriateresponsetoyouthoffending.Manyofthepubliccurrentlyholdalmostexactlythe oppositeview.Isitpossibletochangethis? ipprconductedthreeworkshopswithmembersofthepublictotesttheapproachadvocatedbythis report.Theseconfirmedthatmanymembersofthepublicretainaviewthatyouthcrimerequiresa punitiveresponse.However,bytheendofeachworkshop,onceparticipantshadbeenshowncase studies,theypreferredamoreprogressiveapproach,andweremorewillingtowanttosupportand

1.Theseyouthjusticereformsonlyapplytounder-18s.Theyhavenotaffectedyoungpersonsover18, whoaretreatedasadults. 2. Freedom’sOrphansand MakeMeaCriminal;seewww.ippr.org/publicationsandreports

6

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

helpoffenders.Indecidinghowtheoffenceshouldbetackled,theparticipantswereabletotakeinto accountoffenders’difficulthomelives,theirageandwhethertheyhadpreviousconvictions.Ithas beenobservedthatrestorativejusticeprocedurescanhavethesameeffect,aswould,wehope,our proposalforcommunityinvolvementinlow-levelmisbehaviour. Thesefindingssuggeststhatthereisinfactroomforamiddlewaybasedonnon-criminalapproaches tonon-severeyouthcrime,ifpresentedintherightway.Thereremainsaneedtobeseentobe ‘tough’onseverecrimes.However,peoplecanrecognisethattherearedifferentlevelsofseverityof crimes,andpoliticiansandpolicymakersshouldemphasisetheneedforapproachesthatare appropriatetodifferentcircumstances.

7

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

1.Introduction–whyweneedanewapproachtoyouthjustice Whetheritistherecentspateofurbanstabbings,the‘gang’shootingsin2007,widespreadconcerns aboutbingedrinkingorthelatestfly-on-the-walltelevisiondocumentaryabout‘feralyouth’, preoccupationwiththebehaviourofouryoungpeopleisarecurrentfeatureofourculture. Butdespitepoliticalandmediaconcern,Britainisnotinastateofanarchy.Theriskofbeingavictim ofcrimehasfalleninthepastdecadeandahalf,fromtwoinfivein1995tooneinfourin2007 (HomeOffice2007b).Mostyoungpeoplearelaw-abiding,andthemajorityofthosewhodobreak thelawdosorarely.Overallthenumberofyoungpeoplebreakingthelawisnotincreasing(Wilsonet al 2006). Youthoffendingisknowntohavecomplexcauses.Decadesofcriminologicalresearchshowclearly thatoffendingbehaviourcorrelateswitharangeofsocialproblemsthatreflecttheconflictsand tensionsofgrowingupinmodernsociety.Highlevelsofoffendingareinthefirstinstancerelated closelytotheproblemsassociatedwithpovertyandsocialexclusion,andthisargumentshouldnotbe neglectedwhendebatingyouthcrime.Butoffendingisalsoboundupwithproblemsofgrowingup, includingfamilyconflict,over-crowdinginthehome,andpoorcognitiveandnon-cognitiveskillsas wellascommunicationorbehaviouralproblems.

Aproblemthatpersists Thatsaid,youthoffending3 isarealproblem,andonethatbadlyneedsrealsolutions,foranumberof reasons.Crimeandfearofcrimehaveabigimpactonpeople’severydaylives,particularlyin disadvantagedcommunities.Ordinaryfamiliesandcommunitiesshouldbeabletolivepeacefully withoutfearofcrimeoranti-socialbehaviour,butpeoplefromhouseholdsonlowincomesarefour timesmorelikelytofeelunsafewalkingaloneafterdarkthanbetter-offhouseholds.Youngpeople fromdisadvantagedcommunitiesaremostlikelytobevictimsofviolentcrime,whichhasharmful impactsontheirfuturelifechances(Dixonetal 2006). Whileyouthoffendinghasnotincreased,youngpeoplemaybeinvolvedintypesofcrimewhich causeparticularconcern.Thereareparticularproblemswithhigh-profile,severekindsofviolence, causedbythegreateravailabilityoffirearms,increasing(andself-perpetuating)trendsofknifecarrying,andinsomeareasmoredelinquentgroupsofyouthsandorganisedgangs,whoexploit youngerchildrenasrunnersanddealers(Pearce2007).Moreover,therehasbeenanincreasing concernwithanti-socialbehaviour–non-criminalnuisancesandgroupsofyouthsgatheringinpublic spaces,orlow-levelcrimesuchasgraffitiandvandalism–allofwhich,again,ofteninvolveyoung people. Similarly,whileactualratesofyouthoffendingratesmaynothaveincreased,inthecontextof decliningtotalcrimeratestheyarenowlikelytoformagreaterproportionoftotalcrime.Although researchsuggeststhatpublicperceptionoftheproportionoftotalcrimethatisattributabletoyouth isexaggerated(HoughandRoberts1999),thedeclineinacquisitivecrimes(asopposedtocrimes againsttheperson)sincethemid-1990smayinevitablymeanthatyouthcrimebecomesmorevisible andagreatercauseofconcern.Increasingsurveillance,especiallybyCCTV,mayexacerbatethis. Itisalsotruethatyouthoffending,connectedasitisknowntobewithinequality,willbeparticularly difficulttoreduceinaperiodwhensocialmobilityisindeclineandchildpovertyisoncemore increasing.Thequesttotacklethesocialproblemsthatarecausedby,andthecausesof,youth offendingshouldremaincentraltotheprogressivemission.

3.Wedefine‘youth’morebroadlythanthenarrowdesignationofunder18.Thiswillbeaddressedin moredetailinChapter3

8

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Socialattitudesremaininfavourofpunitiveapproachestoyouthcrime.Thepublicbelievethatlevels ofyouthcrimearehigh,dangerousandrising.Thisispartofamoregeneraltrendofdeclining toleranceofkindsofyouthbehaviourthatinthepast–andinothercountries–havebeenmore accepted.Thereappearstobeagrowingdividebetweensocietyandcommunitiesandtheiryoung people.Asipprhasshowninpreviousresearch,afearofyoungpeopleisnowamajorchallengefor oursocietyandourpolitics(Margoetal 2006).Intertwinedwiththisperceptionthatouryouthare ‘feral’andthatmoralstandardsaredecliningisthattheyouthjusticesystemisfailing.Thispopular critiqueincorporatesbeliefsthatdisciplinehasbeenlostinfamilies,schoolsandcommunities;that youngpeopledonotrespectthelaw;thatcourtsaretoolenientandthatsentencesarenotpunitive enough.

Makemeacriminal ippr’spreviousreportonyouthjustice,MakeMeA Criminal(MargoandStevens2008),madethecasefora moretherapeuticandfamily-basedapproachtoyouth offending,asopposedtothepresent,morepunitive, system.Problemswiththecurrentapproach,thereport argued,include1)notenoughbeingdoneatthe primarylevelofinterventiontopreventcrimebeforeit occurs,totacklethebroadercausesofoffending;and 2)onceanindividualisdisplayingriskfactors,orhas committedananti-socialact,thenatureofthe interventionisnotdirectedsufficientlyatpreventing thatbehaviourfrombeingrepeated;insteaditisbased moreonemptypunishments. Onprimarypreventionthereportrecommended:

• Banningparentsfromanyformofphysical punishmentofchildren.

• Providingstructuredextra-curricularactivitiesfor allyoungpeopleineverylocalarea,withfunding sourcesconsolidatedintoonefund.

• Divertingthe£80millionthattheMinistryof DefencespendseachyearontheCombinedCadet Forces(CCF),mainlyinindependentschools,either tofundingCCFunitsinschoolsindeprivedareas, orcontinuingtofundonlythoseCCFunitsin independentschoolsthatattractacertainamount ofattendance(sayaminimumof50percent)by childrenatstateschoolsindeprivedareas.

• InvestmentbytheGovernmentinanew programmeofsupervisedplayareasin disadvantaged,urbanareas.Thesewouldbestaffed adventureplayparks,integratedwithstructured activity(forexample,inparksoutsideChildren’s CentresandYouthHubs).

• Makechangestoplanningandregulationpolicyto helpsupportarichervarietyofpublicspacesand placeswherepeoplecanmeet.

• Promotetheactiveengagementofadultsin maintainingcivicorderintheirlocalareasthrough measuressuchasexpandeduseof‘Facethepublic’ sessionsinitiatedbytheGovernment’sRespectAction Plan,andencouragingschoolstosetupparentgroups tomutuallyagreeonrulesforchildren.

• Employ‘welfareteams’inlocalauthorities,comprised ofatleastonechildpsychologist,achildpsychiatrist, afamilyworker,acounsellorandaschoolnurseto undertakeschoolvisits. Onsecondaryprevention,thereportrecommended:

• IntroductionbygovernmentofanewSureStartPlus serviceforat-risk5–12s,anextensionofthescheme ofthesamenamecurrentlybeingpilotedwith teenageparentsandtheirchildren.

• OfferingcognitivebehaviouraltherapythroughSure StartPlustoaddressimpulsivenessandother personalitytraitsthatleadtocriminalactivity, multisystemictherapyforthosewiththemost complexneeds,intensiveeducationinterventionsfor thosewithpoorliteracyattainment,andtargeted parentingprogrammessuchasfunctionalfamily therapy.

• NotusingAnti-SocialBehaviourOrders(ASBOs)on childrenyoungerthan12unlessaccompaniedby FamilyorParentingOrders.Instead,Familyand ParentingOrdersshouldbeusedtoimprovethe familycontextinwhichthebehaviouroccurs,orto ensureappropriatecareforthechildinextreme situations,suchasfostercareoradditionalservice supportforthefamily.

• UsingIndividualSupportOrderswhereappropriate, alongsideFamilyandParentingOrders,totargetthe socialcontextinwhichoffendingoccurs–inother words,todirectchildrentopurposefulactivitiesin thelocalareaandensuretheirattendance.

• ScalingbackASBOsforolderchildrenunder18,from thecurrent2-to10-yearlimitto6to24months.

9

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Thetwosidestogovernmentyouthpolicy Itwas,apparently,PrimeMinisterGordonBrownwhocoinedthefamoussoundbiteattributedtohis predecessorTonyBlair,‘Toughoncrime,toughonthecausesofcrime.’Whilebeingpoliticallyastute, thisdouble-sidedtacticanticipatedaproblemwhichtodaysitsattheheartoftheGovernment’s overallapproachtoyouthandcrime.Thelastdecadehasseentwocontradictoryapproachesto reform.Ontheonehandtherehasbeenastrongemphasisontacklingchildpovertyandsocial exclusion,andasetofreformstoattempttocreateayouthjusticesystemaimedatthe prevention of offending.Yetontheother,therehavebeenmeasurestofurtherapunitive agenda,particularlyin relationtocriminaljustice. Thisapproachreflectscontradictoryimpulsesinpolicy.Atoneendofthescaleisanemphasison victims,abeliefindeterrence,andatendencytobelieveintoughretributivepoliciesandthe‘respect agenda’.Attheother,thereisanon-interventionistdiscoursethatarguesthatdelinquencyisan inevitablepartofgrowingupandthereforeshouldbetoleratedbecausemostyoungpeoplegrowout ofcrime. Inpolicyterms,thissplitapproachwasevidentasfarbackasthe1997generalelectioncampaign,in whichyouthjusticeplayedanimportantrole.Thethen-oppositionLabourpartypledgedtospeedup youthjusticeproceedings,thusreducingtheamountoftimeyoungoffenders(andvictimsand communities)hadtowaitbetweenchargeandsentencing.Thispledgewasswiftlyfollowedbymore comprehensivereformsannouncedin1998,settinguptheYouthJusticeBoardandlocalmulti-agency ‘youthoffendingteams’focusedontacklingthecausalfactorsassociatedwithyouthoffending,in termsofbothpreventionandrehabilitation(HomeOffice1998).Thesereformsaimedtodefinethe goalofthewholeyouthjusticesystemasbeingabouteffective,evidence-basedcrimereduction. Laterreformsintroducedrestorativejusticeintotheyouthjusticesystemforthemajorityoffirst convictions.Thesereformswerebasedonhighly-regardedresearchbytheAuditCommission(1996) andhavebeenlaudedbyinternationalcommentatorsasanexemplarinevidence-basedcrime reduction(Waller2006).AnEngagingCommunitiesinCriminalJusticeGreenPaperisalsoduein 2009,whichisaimedatgivingcommunitiesmoreofasayinthewiderjusticesytem. Anumberofpositivepolicieshavealsobeenintroducedwhichimpactyouthoffendingfromabroader perspective.Theserangefromtargetstoreducechildpovertyandtackleyouthunemploymentto educationreformsandthecreationofchildren’strustsandtheDepartmentforChildren,Schoolsand Families’EveryChildMattersagenda.Thehighestprofileinnovationhasbeentheestablishmentof SureStartschemes,firstindeprivedandtheninallareas,providingmulti-agencysupporttoparents andyoungchildren.Morerecently,initiativeshavefocusedonimprovingfacilitiesforyouthandsetan ambitiousagendaforgrowingupinBritain(DCSF2005,2007a). Howeveracontraryapproachwasalsoevident,basedonpunitiveratherthanpreventativepolicy.The childwelfare-centredEveryChildMattersagenda(HMGovernment2003)hasbeenbalancedoutbya punitiveRespectagenda(HMGovernment2006,Casey2008)that–inrhetoricandinpolicy– prioritiseshighlightingtheroleofchildrenandyoungpeopleinanti-socialbehaviour.Thecliffedgeof the18thbirthday,whentheremitoftheyouthjusticesystemendsandyouthsintransitionto adulthoodareabandonedtobedealtwithbytheadultcriminaljusticesystem,withlessfocuson diversionandrehabilitation,isasignificantissuetoo(BarrowCadburyCommissiononYoungAdults andtheCriminalJusticeSystem,2005). OneoftheclearestmanifestationsofthepunitiveagendaappearedintheadoptionofPSAtargets intendedtoreassurethepublicthatoffendingwasbeingdealtwithfirmly.Inparticularthe‘offenders broughttojustice’(OBTJ)target,togetherwiththeendingofmultiplecautioninghavehadtheeffect ofbringingyoungpeopleintothecriminaljusticesystemwhointhepastwouldnothavebeenthere. Inmanyareastherehasbeenagreaternumberofyoungpeoplegoingthroughthecourts,alongwith higherratesofincarceration.Governmentattemptstointroduceprocessesandmeasuresbasedonthe effectivepreventionoffutureoffendinghavebeenonlypartiallysuccessful.Targetstoreducereoffendinghavebeenmissedastheflowoflesssevereoffendersintothecriminaljusticesystemhas

10

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

increased.Thenewmachineryofyouthjusticeandyouthoffendingteams,oftenoverlying,rather thanreplacing,theexistingstructuresofpolice,courtsandprisons,hasfailedtoturnaroundthe dominantapproachofcatchingandpunishingyoungpeoplethroughthecriminaljusticesystem. Thishashadtwoquitedifferentbutequallydamagingresults.First,theincreaseofyoungpeople involvedwiththecriminaljusticesystemisnotlikelytoreducereoffending.Bothinvolvementwiththe policeandcourts,and(evenmore)incarcerationhavebeenshowntobeatbestneutralandatworst damaging.Consequentlythetargetstoreducere-offendinghavenotbeenmet,andenforcementof OBTJtargetshavemadeasignificantcontributiontothisfailure.Despiteprogresstherehasbeena rapidincreaseinthecriminalisationofyoungpeople,growingcustodypopulationsand– consequently–afailureoftheyouthandyoungadultcriminaljusticesystemtoreducerealreoffendingrates. Secondly,theapparentincreaseinyouthoffendingresultingfrommorearrestsandprosecutionsanda growingnumberofchildrenincustodyarelikelytoheightenratherthanreducepublicanxietyand thereforedistrustinthecriminaljusticesystem. Tenyearson,itistimetostepbackandtakestockofprogress.Weneedtorecogniseandhighlight thesuccessesinreducingoverallcrime,settingupaninfrastructureofyouthoffendingteamsand introducinginnovationssuchasrestorativereferralorders.However,wealsoneedtoaskchallenging questionsaboutthedivergentdirectionsintheGovernment’sapproachtoyouthcrime.

Anewmomentforchange? TheGovernment’srecordoverthelastdecadeisthusamixedone.Buttherearetworeasonstothink thatthetimemayberightforafurther,majorrethinkofthewayinwhichtheyouthjusticesystem worksinEnglandandWales.First,assuggestedabove,theGovernmenthasrecentlytakenanumber ofstepstopushyouthjusticepolicyawayfrompunitiveapproaches.ThecreationoftheDepartment forChildren,SchoolsandFamilies(DSCF)in2007,withitsstrongfocusonchildrenandyoung people’swellbeing,helpedtoplacetheneedsofyoungpeoplemorecentrallywithingovernment.The decisionbyitsSecretaryofState,EdBalls,toclosedowntheRespectTaskforce–spiritualhomeof

Talkingtough Theriskofareturntothetough-but-ineffectivepoliciesofthepastisneverfaraway.Infrontlinepolitics,Labour consistentlyplaysthe‘demonisingyouth’card.Despitethebestattemptsofsomepoliticalleaderstode-escalate rhetoric,recentby-electioncampaignshavebeenfought(andlost)usingpenalpopulistrhetoricandCabinetministers arguingforgreateruseofcustodyandharassment. Someexamplesofthisrhetoric: TamsinDunwoodywantsthepolicetoharassyobs,and‘getintheirfaces’.Shesaid:‘There’salotoftalkabouthuman rights,formethemostimportanthumanrightistofeelsafeinyourhomeandcommunity.’ (FromCreweandNantwichLabourPartywebsite:www.creweandnantwichlabour.org.uk) ‘AsanMSP,IwasproudtoleadLabour’slawstocrackdownonanti-socialbehaviour….Anyonewhocarriesalethal bladeonthestreetsoftheEastEndshouldgotojail.IftheSNPwon’tsupporttheseplansIwill.’ (MargaretCurranMSP,fromthe‘MargaretCurranforGlasgowEast’campaignwebsite,www.eastendlabour.org.uk) ‘Thebulkofthoseyoungpeoplewhoareputintocustodyareaged16and17– theyarenotchildren;theyareoften large,unpleasantthugs,andtheyarefrighteningtothepublic.Inmyjudgment,thecourtshavebeenquiterightto ensurethattheyarelockedup,andlockedupforalongtimewheretheyhavecommittedgrievousoffences.’ (RtHonJackStrawMP,JusticeSecretary,HouseofCommons,2008) ‘Thereisnolet-upintacklingantisocialbehaviour.Weknowthatgettinginearlytostoptroublemakersworks,butI wantstrongeractiontodealwithpersistentoffenders.Iwantpoliceandlocalagenciestofocusonthembygivingthem atasteoftheirownmedicine:dailyvisits,repeatedwarningsandrelentlessfilmingofoffenderstocreatean environmentwherethereisnowheretohide.’ (RtHonJacquiSmithMP,HomeSecretary,2008)

11

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

tough-soundingcrimepolicies–andreplaceitwithanewYouthTaskforcedesignedtoimproveyoung people’soutcomeswasaclearsignofintent. InturnthiswasfollowedbyamarkedchangeofemphasisintheformofDCSF’s2007Children’sPlan. Itsetoutwaysinwhichstateservicesaimedatchildrenshouldbegintoworkbettertogetherto preventcrimeinvolvingyoungpeople,allocated£66milliontotacklethosemostatriskofoffending, anditintroducednewpilotsofrestorativeapproachestoyouthoffending(DCSF2007).Thisvision wasfurtherdevelopedintheYouthCrimeActionPlanpublishedin2008.Thisincludedbalancingthe useofASBOswithmoreParentingOrders,movingtoexpandprovisionoffacilitiesforyoungpeople, andintroducingreformstothewayyoungpeopleincustodyaretreated.Italsodevelopedpotentially preventativemeasures,includingexpandingpartnershipsbetweenschoolsandthepolice,andmoved forwardonintroducingnewwaysofengagingthepublicwithreparationsyoungpeoplemaketothe community(HMGovernment2008).AlthoughtheYouthCrimeActionPlanstoppedshortofthe beingthetypeofwholesalereformweproposeinthispaper(anddidnothingforyoungpeopleover 18,whoarestilldevelopingintoadultsbutwhoarebeyondtheDCSFremit),itwasdefinitelyastepin therightdirection. Second,andperhapsmoreimportantly,theConservativesnowseemtobedevelopinganewrangeof ideasinthisarea.DavidCameron’sspeechonthesocialcausesofyouthanti-socialbehaviourwasa decisivestepinmovinghispartyawayfromprevious‘toughoncrime’approaches–andwas unfortunatelycriticisedbyLabourpoliticiansasbeingabout‘huggingahoodie’.Cameron’schanged politicalapproachhasbeenequallysignificant,movingfromcriticisingtheGovernmentforbeingsoft oncrimetoanewargumentthatthecausesofcrimeremainuntackled.Influencedbyreportsfrom formerConservativeleaderIainDuncanSmith’sCentreforSocialJustice,thenewConservative approachhasoftenfocusedontheunderlyingcausesofcrime.Indeed,theTacklingFamily BreakdowntoPreventYouthCrimereport’smainargument–that‘theGovernmenthasgotthe balancewrong;allitsenergiesaredirectedatpunishingthosewhoselivesareproductsofafractured societywithouttacklingthecausesofcrimeinaholisticway’(DuncanSmith2007)–marksahopeful changeoftoneanddirection. Toomuchcanbemadeofthis,ofcourse.UnderformerConservativeShadowHomeSecretaryDavid DaviesthedominantConservativeapproach–sometimesdescribedasthe‘HowardConsensus’–still emphasisedtheneedfortoughersentencing,andexpressedconfidenceintheuseofthecriminal justiceandprisonsystemstoachieveoutcomes.PresscoverageofamorerecentCentreforSocial Justicereportongangsinvolvedsometalkoftheneedfor‘clipsaroundtheear’.Nonethelessitis clearthattheConservativeshavebecomemoreopentotakinganewapproach,andaretodaymore willingtoconsiderreformsthatcouldmovetheyouthjusticesystemtowardspreventingcrimeand tacklingitscauses.Incombinationwithanewlyenlightenedapproachfromgovernment,thismight justbeenoughtocreateapoliticalmoment.

12

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

2.Ataleoftwotargets–whyanewapproachisneeded Chapter1notedthatpoliciesandattemptstosetoutanewapproachtoyouthjusticebasedon effectivenesshaveoftenbeenunderminedbypunitivemeasuresthatdolittletoreducefuture offending.ThischapterillustratesthisbattleofgoalsthroughataleoftwoheadlineGovernment targets:first,thetargettobringmoreoffencestojustice;andsecond,thetargettoreducethe numberofyoungre-offenders.

Bringingmoreoffenderstojustice In2002theHomeOfficewassetaPublicServiceAgreement(PSA)targetto‘improvethedeliveryof justicebyincreasingthenumberofcrimesforwhichanoffenderisbroughttojusticeto1.25million by2007-08.’Thishasbeencommonlyknownasthe‘offencesbroughttojustice’,orOBTJ,target.The OBTJtargetrequiredanincreaseinthenumberofdisposals4 dealtoutbythejusticesystem–andin theoverallvolumeofoffencesrecorded.Thiswasasimplersolutionthanatargetfocusingon increasingtheproportionofrecordedcrimesresultinginaconviction,whichcouldhavecreateda conflictofinterestforthepolicewhowouldbepenalisedforrecordingdifficult-to-solvecrimes. Howeverthefocusonvolumecreatedadditionalincentivesforthepolicetorecordmoreminor offences5 andarrestyoungpeopleforthem–particularlythosethatwouldbeeasytobe‘broughtto justice.’Thetargetchangedthemeasurebywhichlocaldeliveryorganisationswouldbejudged.Itset thebaratachallenginglevel–anincreaseof200,000offences,around20percent,infiveyears.This providedincentivesforlocaldeliveryorganisations,inparticularthepolice,toreducethethresholdfor recordingoffencesandarrestingoffenders. Theresultofthistargethasbeenthatthenumberofoffencesbroughttojusticerosesharplyfrom 1.02millionin2002whenthetargetwasset,to1.45millionintheyeartoDecember2007,an increaseof45percent.Thetargetwasdeclaredas‘ahead’ofdelivery(HomeOffice2007a).Sothe targethasbeenveryeffectiveatmobilisingactionbythecriminaljusticeagencies.Inparticular,the policehaverespondedrobustly,theirincentivesimplytomakemorearrests. Figure2.1. Offences broughtto justice,20022008

1,450,000 Offences

1,350,000 1,250,000 1,150,000 1,050,000

ar Se 02 pM 02 ar Se 03 pM 03 ar Se 04 pM 04 ar Se 05 pM 05 ar Se 06 pM 06 ar Se 07 pM 07 ar -0 8

950,000

M

Source:Criminal JusticeSystemfor Englandand Wales,2008

Performance Target

1,550,000

Date

4.‘Disposal’meanstheoptionsopentoacriminalcourtonsentencing,e.g.custody,community sentence,caution,discharge 5.‘Minor’offenceswouldinclude,forexample,graffiti,noiseoffences,verbalharassment,possessionof classCdrugs,minorcriminaldamage,playgroundfight

13

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Howeverthistrendhashadconsequencesreachingfarbeyondanincreaseincriminalsanctions,and inthiscontextespeciallyforyoungpeople.Theeasiestwaytoincreasethenumberofoffences recordedandsanctionedistoconcentrateonlow-levelcrimethatiseasiertodetect.Inmanyareas policeimprovedtheirperformanceagainstthetargetbymakingmorearrestsforoffencesthatwould previouslyhavebeenignoredordealtwithinformally. Thetargetfocusesonyoungpeople ThismeantthattheOBTJbecameaparticularproblemforyouthjustice,becausetheeasiestcrimesto detecttendtobecommittedbychildren,whoarealsotheeasiestpeopletoarrest.Thishasbeen acknowledgedbytheNationalCriminalJusticeBoardandbySirRonnyFlanagan’sReviewofPolicing: FinalReport (2008): ‘Anemphasisonsanction-detectionlevelshasundoubtedlytoadegree producedtheunintendedeffectofofficersspendingtimeinvestigatingcrimes withaviewtoobtainingadetection,evenwhenthatisclearlynotinthe publicinterest.Anexampleofsuchwouldbealow-levelplaygroundcommon assault.’ (Flanagan2008:10) Afreedomofinformationrequestbyipprinvestigatedthisfurther.Werequestedabreakdownof offencesbroughttojusticebydifferentagegroups.Becauseofdatacomparabilityissues,the informationweobtainedwasnotcomplete,butitillustratesveryclearlythedifferentialimpactofthe targetonyouthsandadults–seeFigure2.2. Evidenceofthetrendtowardsarrestsforlessseriousoffendingisalsobroughtoutinthe2005reoffendingofjuvenilesdata.Accordingtogovernmentresearch,the2005cohortofyoungoffenders hadfewerriskfactorsthanin2002(orindeed2004):i.e.itwaslikelytoproducefeweroffences.The typeofviolentcrimethatwas‘broughttojustice’isassociatedwithrelativelylowlevelsofreoffending,and81percentofthoseoffendersin2005receivedapre-courtdisposalorafirsttier penalty,indicatingalowlevelofseriousness.However,theMinistryofJusticereportedthatthe numberofjuvenilessanctionedforaviolentoffencerosesubstantially–from9,516in2004to11,285 in2005.

Source:ippr

Change since 2002

Figure2.2.Youth vsadultOBTJ cautionsand convictions

Youth OBTJ Adult OBTJ

40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% 2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

TheOBTJfigureshavealsobeenaffectedbynewapproachestooftennon-criminalanti-social behaviour.Someoftheincreaseinthenumberofyoungpeopleconvictedisasaresultofbreachesof courtorders,includinganti-socialbehaviourorders(ASBOs),ratherthanbecausemorecrimeisbeing committed.Breachesofstatutoryordersincreasedby93percentfrom8,256in2002/03to15,910in 2006/07(YouthJusticeBoard2007).

14

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Whiletheoverallfiguresmakeitlookasifahigherproportionofcrimesarebeingsolvedand offenderspunishedthanbefore,theactualityisthatthethresholdforpolicetomakeanarresthas beenlowered.Thepoliceachievedtheirtargetbyconcentratingonthe‘low-hangingfruit’–whowere likelytobechildrenandyoungadultsunder21.Somepoliceforcespaidbonusestoofficersforrearrestingchildrenasyoungas11yearsoldevenwhentherewasnoevidenceofthemhaving committedacrime. Increasingnumbersofyoungwomenarealsobeingbroughtintothecriminaljusticesystem,witha riseof25percentinthenumberofoffencescommittedbyfemalesresultinginadisposal(compared toa2percentdropformales)between2003/04and2006/07(YouthJusticeBoard2007).Since crimescommittedbyfemalestendtobelessseriousthanmalecrimes,thisalsosuggestsaloweringof thethresholdforintervention. Theveryyoungestgetthemostattention ipprrequestedfiguresfromtheMinistryofJusticetocomparethechangesinoffencesbroughtto justicebyagegroupsincethetargetwasintroducedin2002.TheresultsareshowninTable2.1.This tabledemonstratestheextenttowhichyoungeryouthshavebeendisproportionatelytargetedunder theOBTJtarget.Ourfiguresshowanevenfasterriseintheincreaseofunder-15shavingoffences broughttojustice–35percentovertheperiod. Table2.1.Increaseincautionsandconvictions2002-2006 Agegroup Increase/change 10–14years 35% 15–17years 24% 18–20years 2% Over21years 13% Source:ippranalysisofMinistryofJusticedata Althoughtheoveralltrendhasbeenconsistent,theimpactofthistargethasnotbeenuniversalacross thecountry.Thereissignificantregionalvariationintheextenttowhichareashaveembracedthegoal ofcriminalisation–seeTable2.2,nextpage.OurdatarequestfromtheMinistryofJusticeillustrated thatwhilesomepoliceauthorityareashaddoubledthenumberofunder-18sbroughtintothe criminaljusticesystem,othershadbuckedthetrendandhadfocusedonalternativeapproachesto youthoffendingandanti-socialbehaviour,forexampleinNorthamptonshireandSouthWales.We haveincludedthechangesinrecordedcrimelevelstoillustratethefactthatincreasesin criminalisationdonotcorrelatewithcrimerates.

Anineffectiveapproachtoloweringyouthcrime Thekeymessagefromresearchisthatmakingextrauseofthecriminaljusticesystemisnotnormally thebestwaytostopoffendingbehaviour.Thefirstandmostimportantproblemwiththehighratesof arrestandformalcourtproceedingsbroughtagainstminoroffendersisthat,ratherthanreducing crimeandmakingcommunitiessafer,thecurrenttrendofcriminalisingmoreyoungpeopleformore minoroffendingislikelytocreatemorepersistentfutureoffenders(andthusmorevictims).Home Officeresearchhasfoundthatthreequartersofyoungpeoplebetween10and25yearsoldarelawabiding.Ofthe25percentwhodooffend,18percentarenon-frequentoffenders,andonlyoneper centofyoungpeoplearebothseriousandfrequentoffenders(Wilsonetal 2006).Itisnottherefore obviousthatincreasingthenumberofyoungpeople,someindeedveryyoung,whoencounterthe criminaljusticesystemisnecessaryinordertoreducehighlevelsofoffending.Andinfactitisworse thanthis,becauseotherresearchsuggeststhatyoungpeoplearelesslikelytodesistfromcrimeif theycomeintocontactwiththecriminaljusticesystem–andthatthedeepertheygetintothe system,thelesslikelytheyaretogiveupcrime.Forexample,theEdinburghSurveyofYouth TransitionsandCrime(alongitudinalstudyofchildreninthecity)hasfoundthat,otherthingsbeing equal,contactwiththepoliceledtoareductionintheprobabilityofayoungpersondesistingfrom crime(Smith2006).AnolderCambridgeUniversitylongitudinalsurveyreachedsimilarconclusions (Farrington1977citedinSmith2006).

15

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Table2.2.ChangesinOBTJandpolicerecordedcrime,bypoliceauthority,2002-2006 Policeauthority ChangeinOBTJ Changeinpolicerecordedcrime Youth Adult Cheshire 95% 20% 5% Sussex 90% 17% 2% Dorset 81% 28% -11% Essex 71% 46% -7% Humberside 65% 8% -15% Warwickshire 62% 37% 2% Hertfordshire 61% 49% 6% AvonandSomerset 61% 12% -7% Norfolk 58% 14% -12% Leicestershire 57% 26% -3% Suffolk 50% 28% 2% Surrey 50% 20% 8% Kent 44% 17% 12% Cleveland 43% 8% -7% SouthYorkshire 42% 26% 5% Cambridgeshire 40% 25% -19% Nottinghamshire 38% 15% -15% Lancashire 36% 15% 4% ThamesValley 33% 38% 1% Bedfordshire 32% 23% -6% GreaterManchester 30% 16% -12% Cumbria 30% 7% 3% WestYorkshire 29% 18% -23% Staffordshire 26% 0% -4% Gloucestershire 26% -10% -6% Gwent 25% -3% -13% DyfedPowys 24% -5% 20% WestMercia 22% 18% -22% MetropolitanPolice 21% 11% -15% Derbyshire 20% 0% -21% Lincolnshire 19% 19% -10% Durham 14% -2% 4% DevonandCornwall 13% -2% -5% Hampshire 12% 6% 18% Wiltshire 12% 3% 2% Northumbria 9% 4% -22% NorthYorkshire 5% 11% -20% Merseyside 2% -14% -5% WestMidlands -6% -7% -20% NorthWales -7% -7% -18% SouthWales -21% -16% -15% London,Cityof -30% -23% -20% Northamptonshire -36% 20% -10% EnglandandWales 27% 11% -9% Source:ippranalysisofMinistryofJusticedata

16

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

TheHomeOffice/MinistryofJustice’sownresearchonre-offendingconfirmsthisfinding.Although themethodofanalysiswasexploratory,acomparisonoftheimpactofdifferenttypesofdisposalon adjustedre-offendingratesfoundthatdiversion(waysofdealingwithcrimethatavoidedcontactwith thecriminaljusticesystem)andfirsttierdisposals(mainlyreferraltoyouthoffendingpanels)were moreeffectivethancourtcommunitysentencesorcustody(MedhurstandCunliffe2007).Similarly,a comparisonofreconvictionratesinastudyinNorthamptonshirefoundthatprosecutionwasless effectivethancautioningorreferraltoa‘diversionunit’(ateamworkingwithrepeatoffendersby bringingtogethersocialservices,probationofficers,thepoliceandyouthservices,alongwithhealth andeducationprofessionals)(Kempetal 2002).Otherapproaches,particularlytypesofrestorative justiceinthecommunity,havebeenfoundtobeevenmoreeffective(ShermanandStrang2007). Thecurrentapproachasawholetendstobeunsuccessfulintacklingtherealproblem–theproblem ofoffending,anditsimpactonvictims.TheOBTJtarget,andtheincentiveitcreatesforpoliceto targetminoryouthdelinquents,hasledtoanincreaseinthenumberofyoungpeopleenteringthe youthjusticesystemforthefirsttime.Thisisdespitesomerecentsuccesswithaseparate(non-PSA) targetfortheYouthJusticeBoardinreducingthenumberoffirst-timeentrantstotheyouthjustice system.

Further,short-termproblemswiththeOBTJtarget Ourprimarycriticismoftheoffencesbroughttojusticetargetisthatithasencouragedauthoritiesto bringtoomanyyoungpeopleintothecriminaljusticesystem.However,therearemoreshort-term problemsassociatedwiththetargetaswell. First,thetargetreducedtheefficiencyofthecriminaljusticesystem.Likeanysystemwithlimited resources,thecriminaljusticesystemneedstomakesureitallocatesresourcesefficiently.Asaresult oftheOBTJtarget,thepoliceandjusticesystemarewastingscarceresourcesonarrestingminor offendersandbringingminoroffencestocourt(althoughrecentchangeshaveaimedtocounterthis effect)(Dixonetal 2006). Second,theeffectofthetargetwasexacerbatedbythelimit,introducedin1998,onthenumberof cautionsindividualscanreceivebeforetheyareautomaticallyreferredtocourt.Thereafter,a‘vertical tariff’systemmeansthatyoungoffendersareescalatedtowardsacustodialsentence.Despitetargets fortheYouthJusticeBoardtoreducethenumberofyoungpeopleincustodyeachyear,theimpact oftheOBTJtargethasmeantthatagreaternumberofyoungpeopleareendingupindetention.At thesametimetherehasbeenpressureoncourtstogiveouttoughersentences,andwhilethe proportionofminorsentenceshasincreased,theaggregateeffectofallthesefactors–designedto reassurethepublicthatthesystemis‘tough’–hasbeentoincreasetheyouthcustodypopulationby 6percentsince2003/04,againstatargetofa10percent reductionby2007/08(YouthJustice Board2007);seeFigure2.3.

3200 3100 3000 2900 2800 2700 2600 2500 2400 2300

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

ua br Fe

m ce De

ry

r be

r be Oc to

Au gu st

2008/09

Ju ne

Ap ril

Source:Youth JusticeBoard2008

Under 18 secure population

Figure2.3. Youthcustody since2003

17

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Third,thetargetunderminedthebusinesscaseforprevention,that‘anounceofpreventioniswortha poundofcure’(Waller2006).This,assetoutintheAuditCommission’s2004reportYouthJustice,is basedoninvestmentineffectiveinterventionswhichminimisethefactorsknowntobelikelycausesof offending–includingbehaviouralproblemsatschool,exclusionfromeducation,lackofrolemodels, insecurecareorsubstancemisuse.Theseinterventionsresultinfeweryoungpeoplebecoming offendersandthusavoidthecostsofpolicing,courts,communitysentencesandcustody.Inorderto implementthisapproach,forexample,theYouthJusticeBoardhasbeguntospendanadditional£45 milliononpreventionprogrammes. However,thefinancialsavingsfromapreventativeapproachcanonlyberealisedifthethresholdfor formalinterventionbythecriminaljusticesystemremainsrelativelyconstant,sothatlowerlevelsof offendinginthefutureleadtocostsavings.ButtheimpactoftheOBTJtargetontheapproachto minoryoungoffendershasmeantthatthethresholdforformalintervention–whichimposescostson thecriminaljusticesystembudget–hasbeenprogressivelylowered.Unlessthecontinualloweringof thatthresholdisabated,publicmoneyinvestedinpreventionwillnotleadtosavingsinthefutureand thebusinesscaseforpreventionwillbeundermined. Fourth,theeffectofincreasingcriminalisationistodamagethelifeprospectsofyoungpeople,many ofwhomarealreadyvulnerable.Theseeffectsincludeshort-termimpactsasyoungpeopleare stigmatisedasbeinganti-socialorcriminal,particularlywhenindividualsareregularlystoppedandrearrestedonsuspicion,withoutevidencelinkingthemtoacrime.Theymayalsoincludedamageto theireducationbecauseiftheirschoolfindsoutthattheyareintroublewiththepolice,childrenmay beexcluded.Unspentconvictions,evenfortrivialoffences,canalsopreventyoungpeoplefrom developingtheircareerprospectsandthushavelong-termconsequencesfortheirlifechances.

Recentchangestoyouthjusticetargets Changestoyouthjusticetargetshavebeenannouncedrecently.Inordertocounterthedangerof incentivisingpolicetoneglectseriouscrime(particularlysevereviolenceandsexualoffences)infavour oftargetinglow-leveloffending,threetiersoftargetswereintroducedin2007toreplacethesingle target,withanobjectiveofincreasingthenumbersbroughttojusticeforeachtier.TheYouthJustice BoardAnnualWorkloadData2007/8 publicationsuggestssomeprogress.Itsaysthat‘Thisyear’s datarevealsthattherewere17,143fewercrimescommittedbyyoungpeopleresultinginadisposal– a5.8%decreaseincomparisonwith2006/07.Asimilardownwardtrendshowsthatthenumberof youngpeopleenteringtheyouthjusticesystemhasalsofallenoverthelastthreeyearsbyatotalof 10%’.TheYJBaddsthat‘theworkofyouthinclusionprogrammesandthesupportdeliveredtoyoung peopleandtheirparentsbyYOTs–hascontributedtothisachievement’(YouthJusticeBoard2009). Initselfthisiswelcome,andthetargetchangesserveausefulpurpose.However,itisinsufficientto reversethetrendofcriminalisationofyoungpeoplefornon-seriousoffending.Evenwiththethree tiers,thereisstillatarget–inthelowesttier–tobringagreaternumberofnon-severeyoung offenderstojustice.Therearealsopotentialincentivestoadjustthetierofanoffencewhereitisnear theborderofthenexttier,andtotarget‘low-hangingfruit’atthebottomofeachtier.Itisfarfrom clearthatthechangeinthetargetwillhaveasignificantimpactonthetrendsoutlinedabove,andis likelytofailtoreversetheimpetusforthepoliceandjusticesystemtotakeaformal,criminaljustice approachtoalloffending,irrespectiveoftheseverityofthecrimeorageofthepersoninvolved.

Targetsonreducingre-offending In2002theHomeOfficewassetaPublicServiceAgreementtargettoreducere-offendingforyoung offendersby5percentbetween2000and2006.Thereisalonger-termtargettoreducere-offending by10percentbytheendof2009.ThistargetisdelegatedtotheYouthJusticeBoardforyoung offendersandtheNationalOffenderManagementServiceforadults.ThisPSAtargetwasreportedin theHomeOffice2007AnnualReportas‘slipping’,againstafairlyun-ambitiousgoal,andwasquietly ‘replaced’byanalternativemeasurethatfailstoreflectthetrueperformanceofthesystem. Thereformstoyouthjusticeintroducedin1998madecrimereductiontheircoreaim.Re-offending

18

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

statisticsareparticularlyhighforsomeyoungoffenders,particularlythosewhoreceivecustodial sentences,wheretheprovenre-offendingratewasover75percent(MedhurstandCunliffe2007), excluding,ofcourse,undetectedorunprovenoffending.Therefore,focusingthesystemontheaimof reducingre-offendingwaskeytothenewapproach.Untilrecentlychanges,youthre-offendingwas measuredbythepercentageofyoungpeoplewhoreceivedadisposalfromthejusticesystemduring JanuarytoMarcheachyearandwhothenreceivedanotherdisposalforacrimecommittedduringthe followingyear. TheoriginalPSAtargetwasnotbasedontheoverallrateofre-offending,asthiswouldnottakeinto accountthechangesinthecharacteristicsofthecohortofex-offenders,whomaybemoreorless likelytore-offend.ThereforetheHomeOffice(nowtheMinistryofJustice)commissionedstatistical analysistocalculatearateofre-offendingthatwouldbepredictediftheannualcohortwereidentical withthecohortof2000(thebaselineyear)– thatis,containedapopulationofindividualswiththe samelikelihoodofre-offending. Thetargetsetin2002wastoreducetherateofreoffendingby5percent,afteradjustmentby comparisonwiththe2000cohort.Theunadjustedrateofre-offendingforthefirstquarterof2005 (publishedinJuly2007)was40.81percent.Thepredictedratewas40.83:muchlowerthanthe actualratefor2000becausethepopulationofoffendersnowincludedmorepeopleconvictedof relativelyminorcrimesandwas,therefore,overalllesslikelytoproducerepeatoffences.Inotherwords thereduction(0.02percent)wasinsignificant. However,themeasurehasnowchangedsothatitisnownolongeradjustedtopredicted2000levels. Sincetheactuallevelfor2000(withacohortmuchmorelikelytoreoffend)was43.3percent,this producesanapparentdecreaseof2.49.

Source:HomeOffice/ MinistryofJustice data,ippranalysis Note:themethodology ofthemeasurement changedforthe2004 cohortandforthe baseline,soallpoints representthepublished performancecompared withthepublished baseline

0

Adjusted performance

-1 Change since 2000 (%)

Figure2.4.Youth re-offending performance (adjusted, comparedwith 2000rate)

Target -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Re-offendingisgoinginthewrongdirection Thus,unliketheOBTJtarget,there-offendingtargethasfailedtoreversepasttrends.Whileofcourse themarginalreductioninunadjustedre-offendingsince2000istobewelcomed–andnewalternatives tocustodyhavebeenintroducedwhichhavehadapositiveeffectonre-offending–theadjusted changeisstatisticallyinsignificant.ThecontrastingstoriesoftheOBTJtarget(over-achievement leadingtothecriminalisationofthousandsofyoungpeopleformoreminoroffences)andthereoffendingtarget(anegativetrendreflectingtheincreasingflowofmoreminoroffendersintothe system)illustrateourconclusionthatthecurrentGovernmenthasfailedtoachievethenecessaryshift towardsacrime-reductionapproach,andthattheineffectivecriminalise-and-punishparadigmhas dominated.Webelievethatreducingre-offendingwillremainunachievableuntilcrimereduction,rather thantheprosecutionofcrime,becomesthemainfocusofthewholeyouthjusticesystem.

19

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

LiketheOBTJtarget,there-offendingtargethasrecentlychanged.Ostensiblythiswastoaddress problemswiththewaythetargetfailedtoprovideasensitivemeasureoftheimpactofoffences:it onlymeasuredwhetherornotanoffenderwasre-convictedwithinoneyearofhisorherprevious disposal,anddidnottakeintoaccounteitherfrequencyorseverityofoffending.Inthe2007 ComprehensiveSpendingReviewanewmeasurewasannouncedthatwouldcalculatere-offendingon thebasisofthenumberandimpactofre-offencesthatweretakenintoaccount,ratherthanjusta binarypass/failmeasurewhere,forexample,asinglecannabispossessioncountedthesameas homicide. However,thenewmeasures,whileprovidingamoresophisticatedmeasureofre-offending,removed the‘risk-adjustment’aspectoftheoriginaltarget.Thishaspassedrelativelyunchallenged,but amountsinpracticetothereplacementofafailingtargetjustbeforeitwasduetobemeasured.The factthatthenewmeasuredoesnottakeintoaccounttheriskprofileofthecohortreversesthelogic onwhichtheoriginalmeasurewasbased.Ineffect,itmakesthetargeteasiertoachieve,because,as explained,theeffectoftheOBTJtargethasbeentomakeeachyear’scohortlesslikelytore-offend.

Summary ThistaleoftwotargetsillustratesthebroaderhistoryoftheGovernment’syouthjusticereforms. Althoughlevelsofyouthoffendinghavenotincreased(Wilsonetal 2006,PhillipsandChamberlain 2006),thethresholdforbringingyouthdelinquentbehaviourintotheformaljusticesystemhasbeen lowered,resultinginanincreaseinprosecutionsandconvictions.Whiletherehavebeengreenshoots ofaprogressiveapproachbasedontacklingthecausesoffutureoffending,onbalancethe Governmenthasfailedtoachievearealshiftawayfromcriminalisation.Significantprogressin reducingre-offending,akeyaimfortheyouthjusticesystem,willremainelusivewithoutawholesystemparadigmshifttowardsasharedaimofcrimereduction.Recentchangestothesetargetshave focusedonasuperficialproblem–themeasuresbywhichtheyarecalculated–ratherthanseeingthe targetsthemselvesastheproblem.Asthisreportargues,nowisthetimetofindwaysofreversingthe existingtrendanddivertingminoroffendersfromthecriminaljusticesystem. Itisrightthatthereshouldbeanoverallaimtoclosethe‘justicegap’forsevereoffenderswherethere isaneedtoprotectthepublicandachieveretributionforvictimsandsociety.However,foryoung peoplewhocommitasmallnumberofminoroffences,theformaljusticerouteisgenerallynotthe bestwaytoencouragethemtodesistfromoffending.Andtheperverseconsequenceofso-called zero-toleranceapproachestopolicingyouthoffending,whichistobringmoreminoroffendersinto thejusticesystem,isthattherewillbemorefuturevictimsofcrime.

20

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

3.Objectives,barriersto,andnewprinciplesofyouthjustice Theyouthjusticereformsofthelastdecadehaveleftuswithanover-relianceoncriminalising childrenandyoungpeopleandalinkedandpartlyconsequentfailuretofocusonreducingfuture offending.Weneedasystemthathassuchafocus,butatpresenttherearestillobstaclesto achievingthis.Theseare,inparticular,structural,institutionalbarriersandculturalandpolitical problemsincludinglowlevelsofpublictrustintheauthoritiestodeliverjustice. Inthischapterweproposeprinciplesforfuturereformsthatwillachievethechangeweneed.These principlesshouldensurethatanewapproachhasastructurethatispreventative.Thenewyouth justicesystemshouldalsopromotemorecommunityinvolvement–bothtoensurethatitbuilds capacitytochangebehaviour,andalsotoimprovetrustinthesystem.Thefactthatthereisaneedfor higherlevelsofpublicconfidencebeforethesystemcanbeeffectiveunderlinestheimportanceof communityinvolvement.Thesystemshouldalsorespondinwaysmorepreciselytargetedatthe natureandlevelofbehaviourwhichareofconcern.

Whichinterventionsworkinpreventingoffending? Thereisanextensiveliteratureontheimpactsofdifferentinterventionsonfutureoffending.This literaturehasalsobeenextensivelyreviewed.ippr’sreportonpreventingoffending,MakeMeA Criminal(MargoandStevens2008),summarisedthemainfindingsoftheliteratureon‘upstream’ policies.Arecentreviewoftheliteratureonchildren’sinvolvementincrimeandanti-socialbehaviour alsosummarisedtheresearchonre-offending(PriorandParis2005),showingtwobroadcategoriesof approaches–coerciveanddevelopmental. Coerciveapproachesareintendedtodeterbyimposingsanctionsonyoungpeoplewhohave offended(PriorandParis2005).Thetoolsofcoerciveapproachesincludefines,surveillance,curfews andpenalties.Theauthorsconcludehoweverthat‘thegreatmajorityofstudiesdemonstratethat thesesanctionseitherhavenoimpactonre-offendingorareassociatedwithanincreasedlevelofreoffending.’Inparticular,theyfindthat‘gettough’approachesappearnottowork.Instillingfearin youngoffendersandthreatening‘short,sharpshocks’tendsactuallytobemoreharmfulthandoing nothing(ibid:36). Thisisnotofcoursetodenythatthereisinevitablygoingtobesomeneedforinterventions, includingsecureaccommodationfordangerousoffenders,ofwhichtheaimistoprotectthepublic. Howeverevenwhentheseareusedtherecanbebeneficialeffectsforre-offendingifeffective measuresaretakentorehabilitateandresettlethoseoffendersdealtwithinthisway.However,Prior andParis(ibid)observethattheEnglishandWelshDetentionandTrainingOrders(DTOs)introduced in2000tocombinecustodywithmoredevelopmentalapproacheswerenoteffectivelyreducingreoffendingbecausetherewasalackofresettlementactivity–thatis,preparingthetraineeforreturn totheircommunity–andlimitedinterventionsbackathome. PriorandParisaremoreoptimisticaboutthewidecategoryof‘developmental’interventions,which aimatrehabilitationandresettlementofoffenders.Theseincludeinterventionsfocusedonthe individualoffenderbutalsoonbroaderfactors,relatedto,forexample,family,schoolandcommunity. Theauthorsclaimthattheirreviewofrelevantresearchsuggeststhatinterventionsfocusedon individualscanbesuccessfuliftheymeetstrictcriteria.Theseamounttoaneedtotailorinterventions totheparticularcircumstancesofoffenders.Inparticulartheymustfocusonthefactorswhichare mostlikelytocausetheindividualtore-offend.Thisshouldinvolverelatingthelevelofinterventionto thelevelofoffending,organisinginterventionsincommunitysettings,respondingtothegeneraland specificlearningstylesandneedsofpotentialoffenders,tacklingmultipleneedsthroughmultiple services,anddevelopingcognitive,behaviouralandinter-personalskillsinyoungpeoplewhichwill helpthemeithernottooffendornottore-offend.Interventionsneedtohaveahighstandardof planningandmanagementtoworkwell. PriorandParis’sreviewofresearchalsofindsthatinterventionsfocusedmorebroadlyonthecontext ofyoungpeople’srelationshipscanalsobeeffective,inparticularmulti-systemictherapy.Behavioural

21

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

parenttrainingcanbeeffective,too,incertainconditions.Ataschoollevel,environment-focused interventionscanbeeffective,particularlyforhigher-riskgroupssuchasthosewhohavepreviously offended.Asregardsinterventionatacommunitylevel,thereislessacademicevidencebutsome ‘promising’studies. However,givenwhatweknowaboutwhatworks,itshouldremainsurprisingthattheUK–alongwith othercountries(seeGarland2001,Lacey2008)–isstilltravellingdownapenalpopulistpaththat contradictstheevidence.Theevidencesummarisedaboveiswellknownandhasinformedmuchof frontlinepracticefortheYouthJusticeBoard.However,aswehaveshown,theyouthjusticesystem hasbecome,onbalance,morecoercivewithmorechildrenandyoungpeoplebeingcriminalisedand senttocustody.Thequestionthatpolicymakersfaceiswhy?Whatarethebarriersthatwouldneedto beovercometoenableashiftinapproach? Thereare,ofcourse,serioustechnicaldifficultiesinadoptingthedevelopmentalstrategy.Whilethere seemstobegoodevidenceforwhatworkswellandnotsowellinreducingre-offendingrates,the knowledgeofwhatworksdoesnotmaketheimplementationofamoreeffectiveyouthjusticesystem simple.Theneedtofocusinterventionsonthewidelyvaryingcircumstancesofindividualoffenders andpotentialoffendersmeansthatthereisnoone-size-fits-allinterventionthatcanbeimposed centrallyasthecureforyouthcrime.Therearealsoproblemswithbringingsuccessfulexperiments intogeneraluse(inparticularsincemuchoftheacademicresearchisbasedonUStrials).

Institutionalbarrierstoaneffectiveyouthjusticesystem Beyondthetechnicalcomplexities,therearemorefundamentalbarrierstotheimplementationof effectiveinterventions.Theproblemisthatthesystemandthepoliticsofyouthjusticefailtocohere aroundtheobjectiveofeffectivepreventionoffutureoffending.Thisiswhywefocusinthisreporton theoverallsystem,ratherthanonindividualinterventions.Itisalsowhywewilldrawoninternational examplestoshowhowothersystemsachieveagreateremphasisonpreventingfutureoffending. Thesystemneedstoberestructured.Inparticular,fourkeybarrierstoreformmustbeovercome,by:

•removingconflictingobjectivesandincentives •reducingcurrentover-centralisation •improvinglocalcollaboration •creatingalternativerouteswhichallowyoungpeopletobedealtwithwithoutrecoursetothe criminaljusticesystem. Conflictingobjectivesandincentives First,differentpartsofthesystemdonothavesharedobjectivesandareprimarilyconcernedwith meetingtheirowntargets.Thesemayworkagainsteachotheranddonotnecessarilyencourage rationallyrespondingtoindividualcaseswithapersonalisedsetofinterventionsaddressingproblems inajoined-upway.Asdiscussedinthepreviouschapter,whileyouthoffendingteamsandtheYouth JusticeBoardareaskedtoreducethenumberoffirst-timeentrantstothecriminaljusticesystem–to encouragethemtopreventoffendingandtotargetyoungpeopleatriskofbecomingcriminals–the policeandthecriminaljusticesystemhavetargetstomaximisethenumberofoffencesbroughtto justice. Schoolshavetargetswhichareintendedtomaximiseexamresults,particularlyattheC/Dgrade threshold,ratherthanimproveoutcomesforlow-levelachieverswhoaremorelikelytodropoutof schoolandturntocrime,leavingthecriminaljusticesystemtopickuptheexternalisedcostsof educationalfailure.Thusschools,likethepolice,mayactuallybehaveinwayscalculatedtoincrease ratherthandecreaseoffending.Professionalsworkingindifferentinstitutionsalsohavedivergent valuesandaims.Whileyouthsocialworkersaimtoimprovewelfare,prosecutorsandpolicecan underminethataimbytargetingvulnerableyoungpeopleforpoorbehaviourthatiseasytoidentify, drawingthemintothecriminalsystematanearlierage. Legalobjectivescanalsoconflict.Theeffectofthestatutoryaim(tofocusonreducingreoffending) introducedin1998legislationwasunderminedbytheintroductionintheCriminalJusticeAct2001of

22

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

apotentiallyconflictingstatutoryaimthatsentencesshouldbecommensuratewiththeseriousnessof theoffenceratherthanfocusingontacklingcauses. Allthesesystemscanbeindividuallyjustifiedbuttogether,theydonotadduptoacollectivedriveto attackthecausesofoffending. Whatisparticularlyconcerningisthelackofconsiderationoftheefficiencyofthesystem,with millionsbeingspentonineffectivecourtsandcustodial(orcommunity)sentenceswhilemorerobust incentivescouldensurethatresourcesweretargetedtowardstheoverallaimofreducingcrime.The lackofinstitutionalcoherenceiscompoundedbyperversefinancialincentives.Custodyabsorbsthe majorityofthebudgetoftheYouthJusticeBoard,butisallocatedonthebasisof‘demand’from magistratesratherthanbeingstrategicallycommissioned.Institutionswhichmakedecisionsdonot necessarilybearthecostofthosedecisions. Toomuchcentralcontrol,toolittlelocalcollaboration Theyouthjusticesystemisverycentralised,whichgivestoolittlescopeforlocalcollaboration.The currentsystemofcentraltargetsissetbytheTreasuryandaddedtoateachlevelofgovernance,with additionaltargetsfortheYouthJusticeBoard,individualcriminaljusticeareas,policeforces,youth offendingteamsandcourts.Professionalsatthefrontlineoftenarguethatthisapproachundermines theirprofessionaljudgementandmakesitmoredifficulttoinnovateandpursuelocalsolutionsto localproblems.Thecentraltargetsthatdominatetheyouthjusticesystemmeanthatinstitutions focusonthedemandsofthemanagementchainratherthanoncooperationandcollaborationwith otheragenciesdealingwithyouths.Thisisarecipefordivisionratherthancollaboration. Centralisationcancreateperversestructuralincentivesforlocalorganisations.Inparticular,while preventionandcommunitysentencesforyoungoffendersareprovidedandfinancedlocallybyyouth offendingteams,youthcustodyiscommissionedbytheYouthJusticeBoardcentrally,fromcentral funds.Thiscreatesafinancialincentiveforlocalyouthjusticesystemsnottoreducetheuseof custodybecausethecostsarebornecentrally.Localauthoritiesandagencieshavealmostnosayin thebillionsofpoundsthatarespentonadultandyouthcustody(AllenandStern2007),butsince theydonotfundthem,thereisnoincentivetoseekbetteralternatives.Centralisationalsocontributes tothelackofaccountabilitytolocalcommunitiesandthepublic’spoorlevelofknowledgeaboutthe system,becausecriminaljusticeissofarremovedfromlocalpeople. Atthelocallevel,thisover-centralisationismadeworsebyalackofgood-qualityinformation.A surveyfoundthatwhile99percentofmagistratestakeintoaccounttheseriousnessofthecrimein sentencingdecisions,only58percenttookaccountofre-offendingrates,despitethatbeingthe statutoryaimoftheyouthjusticesystem(AuditCommission2004).Thisisinpartduetothe incentivesaffectingmagistrates,butalsotothequalityoftheinformationtowhichtheyhaveaccess. Whiletheyhavedetailedknowledgeofthecrimefromtheevidencepresentedincourt,andhave some(albeitvariable)informationfromyouthoffendingteamsabouttheoffender’sbackground,they havenoregularinformationabouttheimpactofsentencing.Thereisasimilardearthoffeedbackto youthoffendingteamsandsecureinstitutionsabouttheimpactofthesentencesthataregivento youngpeople. Toofewalternativestocourtsandpolice Finally,thecurrentsystemprovidesfewalternativestomoveyoungpeopleawayfromthecriminal justicesystem.Onebarriertothesuccessofyouthjusticereformsthatwillcontinuetobeaproblemis thelackofinfrastructureandmethodstodivertyoungpeopleawayfromthecriminaljusticesystem whentheystartgettingintotroublebutbeforetheymoveontoactualoffendingbehaviour.Manyof thechildrenandyoungpeoplewhocomeintocontactwithpoliceandthecourtsalreadyhavearange ofproblemsthatputthematriskofoffending.Yetitisonlyafterarrestthatthesystemstarts spendingmoneyonthem–moneythatcouldhavebeenmoreefficientlyspentatanearlierstage,for examplethroughlocalauthorityyouthservices.AstheAuditCommission’s‘James’casestudyshowed (2004),upstreamintervention(thatis,interventionbeforeoffendingstarts)couldbemoreeffective, butsocialproblemsareidentifiedafteroffending,notbefore.Thecriminaljusticesystemhasbecome agatewaytosocialspending–oftentoolittletoolate–ratherthanalastresort.Thishasbeen

23

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

describedasthe‘criminalisationofsocialpolicy’.Thestructuremakesitdifficulttointerveneother thanthroughcriminalisation.

Politicalandpublictrustbarrierstochange Intheconflictbetweencoerciveanddevelopmentalinterventions,theculturalpressure–frompolitics andthemedia–istogofortheformer.Therearetwomain–linked–culturalbarrierstochange. Sincethemid-’90sthemainpoliticalpartieshavetriedtooutbideachotherinthetoughnessoftheir responsetocrime.Wedonotbelievethatculturalpressureforineffective‘toughness’isbecause politicians,votersandthemediawanttohavehigherratesofcrimeasaresultoftough-lookingbut ineffectiveinitiatives:itisbecausethereisanear-universal‘commonsense’,butun-evidenced,belief thattough/coerciveapproachesareeffective.Asarguedabove,researchshowsthatcoercive approachestoyouthcrimearelikelytoleadtomorevictimsinthefuture,ratherthanfewer. Nevertheless,themainparties’overallapproachtoyouthcrimehasbeentocallformorepolicewith greaterpowers,toughersentencesandmoreprisonplaces.Findingaplaceinthemainstreampolitical discourseforargumentsagainstcriminalisingyouthisgoingtobeachallengeforpolicymakers. Thesepoliticalbarriersreflecttoalargeextentthemainstreampublicopiniononyouthcrime.Asour deliberativeworkshopsshow(seeChapter5),thepublictendtobelievetheyouthjusticesystemis too‘soft’andthatthereisalackofcontrollingpowerbythepolice.Thisreflectsbroadersocial attitudestoyoungpeopleandadeepeningfearofyouthasdiscussedinpreviousipprresearch (Margoetal 2006).Publicattitudesandculturalperceptionsofchildrenandyoungpeoplealsolinkto thecausesofyouthanti-socialbehaviour.Communitiesthathavelowerperceptionsoftheirabilityto changethebehaviouroftheiryoungpeopletendtohavehigherratesofyouthcrimeaswell.Theyare lessabletotackledevianceandsocialisetheiryoungpeopleeffectively,andhaveagreaterrelianceon lawandorderinstitutions–police,courtsandprisons–toenforcemoralsandstandardsofbehaviour. However,thepositionisnotcompletelybleak.Forinstance,researchershavefoundthatpeople’s preferredsentenceforaparticularoffenceisactually‘softer’thantheaveragesentence–butthey believethatsentencesaremilderthantheyactuallyare.Whengivenmoreinformationabouta particularcasestudypeopletendtobemoreunderstandingandlessinclinedtowardspunitive responses(forasummaryoftheevidenceonpublicattitudesseeAllen2006).Whatthisalsosuggests isthattherelativeopacityanddistanceofthecriminaljusticesystemfromlocalcommunities–andits impenetrablelanguageandrules–increasethedistancebetweenthesystemandlocalcommunities. Asipprhasarguedbefore,themorepeopleunderstandaboutthecriminaljusticesystemthelessthey callforpunitiveresponses(Rogers2005). Thisisconfirmedbymuchoftheexperienceofrestorativejustice.Whenvictimsconfrontoffenders(in safeconditions,andwithappropriatesupport),theyoftenenduplessenthusiasticforretributionand moreunderstandingofthewaytheoffenderhasbehaved.Atypicalcommentmightbe:‘IfIhadbeen throughthesameexperiencesImighthavemadesimilarchoices’.

Anew,‘popularpreventionist’approach Inordertoovercometheculturalandinstitutionalbarriersandachieveamoreeffectiveyouthjustice systemwithgreaterdemocraticandcommunitylegitimacy,wearguethatthereneedstoberadical reformoftheyouthjusticesystem,underpinnedbynewprinciples.Thenewapproachwouldbeboth progressive,inthatitwouldfurthersocialjusticeanddemocraticengagement,andpreventative,with theaimofreducingcrime,whilestillmeeting‘populist’objectives.Wedescribethisapproachas ‘popularpreventionism’. Tounderstandit,itisfirstimportanttounderstandwhattheapproachrejected.Weclearlyneedto findawayforpoliticianstoletgoofwhatsomecall‘penalpopulism’,orcompetingtobe‘tough’. However,wedonotargueforapurely‘penalwelfarist’approach,inwhichtheyouthjusticesystem focusesexclusivelyontheneedsofoffenders. Inthefirstinstance,areversalofthecurrentapproachisnotpoliticallyrealisticinEnglandandWales. Voters,mediaandpoliticiansstilldemandandexpectsomeformofpunishmentforwrong-doing.

24

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Moreover,itisnotclearthatanexclusivelywelfaristapproachwouldbeeffective.Ourinterviews withpractitionersinScotlandsuggestedthat,withintheirmoreneeds-basedsystem,theabilityto challengebehaviourwasanimportantpartofthesystem.Theyouthjusticesystemneedstoform partofsociety’slayingdownofboundaries.Fromthisviewpoint,thereisanargumentforthe justicesystemasadeterrentforpotentialoffenders.Evenifthesystemeffectivelytacklesthe problemsleadingtooffending,theexternalperceptionthatyoucan‘getawaywith’crimecould increasetheamountofoffending.Self-reportsurveysfindthatfearofgettingcaughtisa significantfactorinyoungpeoplenotcommittingcrime. Inawelfaristsystemthereisalsoaproceduraljusticeproblemwithonlyfocusingonneeds,since anoffenderfromaprivilegedbackgroundwithfewsocialproblemswould‘getawaywith’an offencewhiletheirpoorer,troubledfriendwouldreceivemoreinterventions.Similarly,thereis unfairnessinasevereoffenderwithfewadverseconditionsreceivingalesserinterventionthana minoroffenderwitharangeofproblems;inotherwords,therecanbeaperceptionthatthereis noproportionality. Instead,weargueforanewapproachbasedontheideaofpreventionofcrimebeingtheprimary goal,whileensuringthatthisengageswithpublicdiscourseandthedesireforfairconsequences foroffenders,victimsandcommunities.Thiswouldcreateanewdiscoursefortalkingaboutyouth crimethatmovedawayfromthepolarisedlanguageof‘tough,punish,yob’ontheonehand,and ‘welfarist,liberal,tolerant’ontheother. Thenewapproachtoyouthcrimewoulddrawontheideasofcommunityandrestorativejustice. Aswewilldiscussinthenextsection,thepracticeofcommunityandrestorativejusticecombines arisk-basedapproachwithanemphasisontheoffenderrepairingthedamagedonetothevictim andthecommunity.Researchhasfoundapositiveresonancewiththepublic,combiningfairness andtruthwithputtingthingsright,fixingthedamageorrightingawrong(RethinkingCrimeand Punishment2004).

IfitworksinScotland,itcanworkhere Ifthisallsoundstheoreticalandidealistic,thenitis worthlookingnorthofthebordertoobservethe discourseofthecurrentminorityScottishNationalist Partywhoseemphasisisonpreventingcrimeand tacklingthecauses.AnobviousexampleisinGlasgow wheretheSNP-supportedpreventativeand diversionary‘EnhancedPolicingPlan’hasachieved dropsincrime–whiletheunsuccessfulLabour candidatecalledfortoughercrackdownsandmoreuse ofcustody.TherhetoricoftheScottishExecutive JusticeSecretaryKannyMacAskillcontrastswithhis Westminstercounterpart’s: ‘Youngpeoplearemorelikelytobea victimofcrimethantheyaretocommita crime.Weknowthatthevastmajority arewellbehavedandacredittotheir communitiesbutwedoneedtotackle thesmallminoritythatcauseproblems. OurrecentlypublishedYouthJustice Frameworksetoutourapproachfor tryingtomakesurefeweryoungpeople

areaffectedbythethree‘Ds’ofdrink, drugsanddeprivationthatleadtoalife ofcrime.It’sbasedonpreventionand earlyinterventionwithafocusonall relevantagenciesworkingtogetherto protectyoungpeople.’ (KannyMacAskill,quotedinEast RenfrewshireCouncil2008) Itshouldbenotedthat,whilepursuingpopular preventionistpoliciesforyouthjustice,theSNPdoes notcallforawelfaristapproach.Inparticular,the anomalyoftheverylowageofcriminalresponsibility (8yearsold)inScotlandisnotatargetforSNPreform. Crucially,thepartyarguesthatitcanachieveits popularpreventionistpolicyaimswithoutchangingthe ageofcriminalresponsibility,whichwouldplayinto thehandsofthepenalpopuliststryingtoportraythem assoftoncrime.Asanalternativetoincreasingtheage ofresponsibility,theSNPisstrengtheningthetiered anddiversionarysystem,whilefocusingontackling thecausesofoffending–‘drink,drugsand deprivation’.

25

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Anewlocalapproach,withthecommunityatitsheart Theseapproachestooffendingalsoputthecommunityattheheartofthejusticeprocess,whichhas thepotentialtoovercomedifficultiesarisingfromtheremotenessofourcurrentsystemfromthe public.Thereneedstobemoretothenewapproachthanatechnocraticorutilitarianfocuson effectiveness.Tooofteninthepast,acrosspublicservices,thefocuson‘whatworks’andthe increasingprofessionalisationofwelfarehasmeantthatprofessionalsandtechnocratshavetakenover responsibilityforcommunitysafety,withtheunintendedconsequenceofincreasingthedistance betweencommunitiesandlawenforcementandincreasingtherelianceoncriminalisationandformal processes.Thelackofcommunityengagementinjusticeunderminesthelegitimacyofthejustice system,andsoreducestrustandultimatelyeffectiveness. Onthecontrary,publicconfidenceiscrucialtotheeffectivefunctioningofthecriminaljusticesystem, whichisunlikelytoreduceoffendingbehaviourwithoutengagingwithcommunities.Enablinga communitycollectivelytocontrolthebehaviourofitsmembersiskeytoachievingimprovedpublic safetyandreducingbothcrimeandthefearofcrime.Ithasalwaysbeentruethatwithoutcertain minimumlevelsoftrustbythecommunitiestheyservice,agenciesfromthepolicetocourtsand offendermanagementcannotdotheirjob.Policeneedvictimsandwitnessestoreportcrimesandto cooperateintheirinvestigations;courtsneedjurorsandmagistratestovolunteertheirtime,andtheir decisionsneedtohavelegitimacywiththepublic;agenciesresponsibleforpunishmentand rehabilitationneedthepublictotrustthattheycankeepthemsafe. Currentlypublicconfidenceinthecriminaljusticesystemisgenerallylow.Thecriminaljusticesystem isoftencriticisedforfailingtolookaftervictims,witnessesandtheirassociates.Agenciessuchasthe policecanbeverypopular.Butthepublicknowverylittleaboutcriminaljustice,andhavingcontact withthepoliceactuallylowersuserconfidence.Lowertrustleadstoreducedconfidenceinservices andreducedlikelihoodofcooperation,particularlyamongminoritycommunities.Lackofconfidence alsoappearstofuelfearofcrimeandmorepunitiveattitudes.Ontheotherhand,someevidence suggeststhatincreasingknowledgeofthecriminaljusticesystemincreasespeople’sconfidenceand reducesmisconceptionsaboutitsleniency.ipprhaspreviouslypublishedresearchinthisareathatsets outthecaseforcommunityengagementinjusticemorefully(seeRogers2005).Inparticular,ipprhas demonstratedthattrustcorrelateswithfamiliarityinthecriminaljusticesystem. Communityandrestorativejusticedomorethanthis,however.Bybringingmembersofthe communityintoactiveparticipationtheygivethecommunityownershipofthejusticeprocess.This empowermentdestroysmythsandemphasiseswhatworks.Onemeaningof‘restorative’justiceisthat itrestoresoffenderstothecommunity;likelytobeahighlyeffectivewayofpersuadingthemnotto re-offend,andpersuadingthecommunitytocollaborateintheirrehabilitation.

Abroaderdefinitionof‘youth’ ThecurrentEnglandandWales‘youth’justicesystemhasanarrowdesignationof‘youth’–ages1017.Inotherwords,itisaboutasystemfordealingwithchildren.Thisleadstoanabrupt‘cliffedge’of the18thbirthdaywhenthesystemstopsfocusingondevelopingnon-criminalbehaviourandfocuses evenmoreonpunishment.Howeversociety’sdefinitionof‘youth’isbroader,withyoungpeople remainingdependentonparentsuntiltheirearlytwenties.Neurologicalandbehaviouraldevelopment continuesuntilthemid-tolate-20s,asdiscussedinthisproject’spreviousreport(MargoandStevens 2008).Wedonotrecommendthattheageofcriminalresponsibilityisraised–youngpeopleneedto beheldandhelpedtoberesponsible,andpoliticallysuchaproposalwouldbecounterproductive.But wearguethatthedevelopmentalapproachproposedinthispaper,basedondiversionandcommunity andrestorativejustice,shouldbeextendedtoyouthsintransitiontoadulthood.

26

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

4.Cananewdirectionbepreventative? Thischapterdrawsontheprinciplesofanewapproachtoyouthoffendingtodevelopasetofpolicies andsystemsthatwouldmaketheyouthjusticesystemfocusedonreducingvictimisationbydiverting youngpeopleawayfromcrime,changingbehaviourandinvolvingcommunities.Wecallthissystem ‘tieredanddiversionary’.Inpracticethismeansdivertingyoungpeopleawayfromthecriminaljustice system,aswellasfromcrime,andintoalternativesystemsthatwilldelivereffectivepunishmentand rehabilitation.Tosatisfytheneedtotailorinterventionstothelevelofoffending,theproposedsystem istiered(MargoandStevens2008). Wehavearguedinthisreportthatthereareinsufficientalternativeroutesoutsidetheyouthcriminal justicesystemfordealingeffectivelyandproportionatelywithyouthanti-socialbehaviourandnonsevereoffending.Inthetieredanddiversionaryapproachthecriminaljusticesystemwouldstillplaya roleintacklingyouthoffending,butwouldfocusonoffenderswhoareadangertothepublicorwho haveprovedresistanttoalternativeapproaches.Moreeffective,community-rootedapproacheswould beusedfornon-severeoffending,allowingtheuseofcourtsandprisonsforseverecrimes.

Tier1 Atthebasiclevel,weenvisageapartnershipoflocalagenciesandthecommunityworkingtogether onapreventativestrategy.Asoutlinedinthisproject’spreviousreport(MargoandStevens2008) recentgovernmentapproachestoyouthcrimehavebeenover-reliantoninterventionssuchasantisocialbehaviourorders(ASBOs),withoutanyaccompanyingsupporttotacklethecausesof behaviouralproblems.MechanismslikeASBOshavealsobeenlinkedtothecriminaljusticesystem: breachinganASBOconstitutesacriminaloffence(evenifthebreachitselfwasnon-criminal behaviour,forexampleenteringacertaingeographicalarea),withthepotentialforacustodial sentence.Ratherthaninterveningearlytotacklethecausesofanti-socialbehaviour,theimpacthas oftenbeentolowerthethresholdforcriminalisationtoincludelegalbutanti-socialbehaviourandto focusoncoerciveinterventions(thatcontrolordeter,suchascurfewsandexclusionzones)and expressivejustice(suchaspublishingphotographsofchildrenwithASBOs).Aswehavediscussed,the evidenceshowsthatcoerciveapproachestendtobeineffectiveorcounter-productive.(SeeMargo andStevens2008foradiscussionoftheneedforabroaderrangeoftherapeuticandfamily-based interventions.) Anewapproachwouldcontinuetoseeanti-socialbehaviourasalegitimatereasonforintervention. However,theaimwouldbetoidentifyandtacklethefactorsleadingtothebehaviour.Anti-social behaviourinterventionwouldbeaformoftargetedsupporttopreventbehaviourdevelopinginto crime.Akeyprinciplemustbetohaveanapproachwhichpoolsresourcesandinformationbetween thedifferentagenciesandfocusesattentiononwaysofidentifyingchildren’sbehaviouralproblems beforetheybecomeentrenched.InDenmark,eachlocalareahasan‘SSP’–whichstandsfor‘schools, socialservicesandpolice’–thatisresponsibleforyouthwelfareanddealingwithpoorbehaviour. SSPsworktogetherlocallytoidentifychildrenwithpotentialproblems.The‘schools’partincludes leisure-timeactivities,asmostDanishschoolchildrenstayonsiteforafter-schoolactivities.Children withbehaviouralproblems,inschooloroutside,canbeprovidedwithextraservicestotackletheir problemswithamulti-agencyapproach.Thisapproachhas,inturn,influencedapproachescurrently beingtrialledinScotland(seebox,nextpage). OtherpartsoftheUKhavealsoattemptedtodevelopalternativestothecriminaljustice/ASBO approach.InSouthWales,ChiefConstableBarbaraWildinghasledtheimplementationofagraduated approachtoanti-socialbehaviourwithASBOsandthecriminaljusticesystemusedasalastresort. Youngpeoplegettinginvolvedinanti-socialbehaviourreceivetheresponsemostappropriatetothem. Thismaybeaverbalwarning,aletterhomeoravisitfromapoliceofficerandateacher.Existing powerssuchasindividualsupportorderscanbeusedwithoutresortingtomorecoerciveASBOs.Asin EastRenfrewshire,theearlyinterventionanddiversionfromanti-socialbehaviourispartofawider strategyincludingpositiveactivities,theintroductionofanon-emergencyanti-socialbehaviour reportingtelephonelinethathasreducedthenumberofinappropriate999callsmadetothepolice,

27

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

EastRenfrewshire’sSSPCapproach: Schools,Socialservices,Policeand Community EastRenfrewshireisasmallauthorityontheoutskirts ofScotland’ssecondcity,Glasgow.Figuresfrom2005 showedthatyoungpeoplewereresponsiblefor85per centofstreetdrinkingcrimes,82percentofvandalism and13percentofviolentincidents.Sevenestablished ‘gangs’operatedintheareaandwereinvolvedin violenceandanti-socialbehaviour(Harrington2007). FollowingavisittoobservetheDanishSchools,Social servicesandPoliceapproach,theyouthoffendingand children’sservicesinEastRenfrewshiredevelopeda newpartnershipbetweenschools,socialservices, policeandcommunitydepartments–whichtheycalled the‘SSPCapproach’.Thenewpartnershipwassetup toenablethedifferentagenciesdealingwithyouth behaviourtopoolproblems,expertiseandresources. Thepartnershipdevelopedastrategytotacklethe causesandeffectsofyouthbehaviouratfourlevels:

• Prevention–developing‘softskills’,SureStartand FamilyCentres,school-basedteams,community involvementandeffectivepublicrelations.

• Diversion –networkofleisure/communityservices, activitiesandsupportforyoungpeopleatrisk.

• Earlyintervention –YoungPerson’sReferralGroup agreespromptmulti-agencyresponsesto communityconcerns(includingpolicereferrals).

• Specialistintervention withoffenders,using statutorymeasureswherenecessary. Workinginpartnershipensuredthatagenciescould shareinformationaboutyoungpeopleatriskof becomingoffendersinthefuture.Inpractice,themain ‘engineroom’oftheSSPCapproachwastheYoung People’sReferralGroup.Thisisamulti-disciplinary groupofprofessionalsdrawnfromallthepartnerswho assesscasesofyoungpeopleidentifiedasbeing‘at risk’,orwhoaredisplayingearlysignsofcriminal behaviour.TheReferralGroupmeetseverythreeweeks toassesswhetherayoungpersonwouldbenefitfrom specificinterventions,forexamplefamilytherapy, educationalsupport,diversionaryactivitiesor supervision. Thisapproachhasanumberofbenefits.Byworking together,youngpeoplewhosebehaviouriscausing problemsorshowssignsofpotentialfutureoffending arelesslikelytoslipthroughthenet.Inpractice,this

approachenablesagenciestobringforward interventionsforyoungpeoplewhomightotherwise beignored.Ratherthanbeinga‘tolerant’approach, thissystemactuallylowersthethresholdfor intervention.Butitreducesrelianceontheformal processessuchasASBOs,policechargesandreferrals totheChildren’sReporterorSheriff’scourt.Apolice officer,teacher,careworkerorhousingofficercandeal withyouthbehaviouralproblemsproactivelywithout relyingonthecriminaljusticesystem.East Renfrewshireismovingtowardsthekindofearly interventionanddiversionmodelthatthisreport advocates. TheYoungPeople’sReferralGroupisthecentralpart ofawiderstrategyoftheSSPCinEastRenfrewshire. Otherelementsincludestreetworkwithgroupsof youngpeoplewheretheycongregate,forexamplea mobilefootballpitchcanbeassembledwhereyoung peoplearehangingout.TheSSPCworkswithgroupsas wellasindividuals–forexample,aproblemofantisocialbehaviouronbusesbyagroupononeestate wasaddressedwitha‘meetthedrivers’event,inwhich youngpeoplewereabletotalktothebusdriversand understandtheharmtheywerecausing.Anotherkey partofthestrategyistoengagethepublicandto improvetheperceptionofyoungpeopleinthearea. Results ItisnotpossibletosaydefinitivelythatthenewSSPC systemhasonitsownledtoimprovementsin behaviour.Butaqualitativeevaluationin2008 recommendedtheapproachbeexploredacross Scotland(Hurleyetal 2008),andthelocalauthority reportspromisingresultscoincidingwiththe introductionofthenewapproach. ‘[Thenumberof]peoplecaughtwith offensiveweapons,includingknives,is down21percentfrom122in2005to96 in2007.Referralstothechildren’s reporterhavedroppedby31percent from212in2005to145in2007. Vandalismwasdownfrom1,846 incidentsin2005to1,563incidentsin 2007.Therewasareductioninpersistent offendersduringtheperiodstudiedwith EastRenfrewshirehavingoneofthe lowestandmostimprovedresultsin Scotland.’ (EastRenfewshireCouncil2008)

28

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

andmeasurestoreduce‘glassings’(physicalattacksinwhichdrinksglassesareusedasaweapon)by changingthematerialsusedincitycentrebars. OtherareasshoulddrawonthesuccessesofSouthWalestocreatealternativeapproachestoantisocialbehaviour.Althoughthelocalareahas,asaresult,notmetitstargetstoincreasethenumberof offencesbroughttojusticeorhandoutmoreASBOs,itisoneoffewpoliceareastohavereducedthe flowofyoungpeopleenteringthecriminaljusticesystem.Ithasalsoachieveda60percentnonreoffendingrate(Wilding2008).ThegraduatedapproachisnowbeingspreadtootherareasofWales. Theseexamplesdemonstratethatitispossibletoimplementaproactivebutdiversionaryapproachto anti-socialbehaviourintheUKthatcanbepoliticallyviableifeffective.Theexamplesalsoshowthat earlyinterventioninanti-socialbehaviourshouldbetackledbyamulti-agency,inter-disciplinary partnership.Ratherthanrelyingonthepolice,actingalone,todealwithanti-socialbehaviour(which toooftenoccursincoerciveinterventions),amulti-agencypartnershipwouldensurethat developmentalinterventionsweretargetedatanearlystage.Referralscouldbereceivedfromarange ofsettingsincludingschools,carehomes,youthclubs,publictransportoperatorsandhousing associations.Ordinarymembersofthecommunitycouldevenhaveapathforreferral–forexampleif agroupoftenresidentsidentifiedayoungpersonoragroupwhosebehaviourwascausingconcern theycouldmakeacommunityreferral. Thisfirsttierwouldgenerallybeintendedasthemainapproachforearlyinterventioninanti-social behaviourandsomeminoranti-socialcrimessuchasgraffiti,vandalismorminorfighting.Someyoung peoplewhoareinvolvedinanti-socialbehaviourorminorcrimecouldalsobereferred‘up’totiertwo.

Tier2 Thefirsttierapproachtoearlybehaviouralproblemsdescribedaboveisnotsufficientonitsownto addresstheproblemofyoungpeoplebeingdrawnintothecriminaljusticesystem.Althoughantisocialbehaviourhasbeenahigh-profileissuerecently,thewaysofdealingwithactualcriminal behaviourarestillunsatisfactoryinthattherearenointermediatestepsbetweentheanti-social behavioursystemandthecriminaljusticesystem.Forminorandmedium-severecriminalbehaviour, weneedanapproachthatismorevictim-focusedthanthemainlywelfaristprocessoutlinedatthe firsttier,yetdoesnotbringyoungpeopleintothecriminaljusticesystem.Toachievethis,the principlesofreparationandcommunityaccountabilityshouldbeintegratedatthislevel. Communityandrestorativejusticeideashaveincreasinglyattractedtheinterestofacademicsand policymakersforthepastdecadeormore.Ratherthanbeingaspecificpolicy,restorativejusticehas beendescribedasasetofprinciples: ‘Though“restorativejustice”isbestunderstoodasoneaspectofcommunity justice….restorativejusticemightbelooselycharacterisedasjusticethat bringstogether(usuallybutnotalways,facetoface)thosewithastakeina conflict–disputants,victimsandoffendersandtheirassociates,and representativesofthecommunityatlarge–withtheaimof •establishingitscausesandconsequences •agreeingonwaysofmakingamendsandrepairingharmdone(restitution) •identifyingmeansofpreventingsimilaroffencesoccurringinthefuture.’ (Rogers2005:12) Communityjusticeencompassesrestorativejustice,butalsoincludesotherformsofcommunity-based approachestoholdingoffenderstoaccountandaddressingtheriskfactorsinfutureoffending. Restorativejusticeisaformofcommunityjustice,inthatituseslaymembersofthecommunityrather thanprofessionalswhoarepartoftheformalcriminaljusticesystem.Forfurtherdiscussionofthese conceptsandexamplesfrompractice,seeapreviousreportbyippr(Rogers2005). Reformssince1998haveintroducedcommunityjusticeformostfirst-timeconvictionsintheyouth courts,apartfromthemostseriousoffences.Offendersgivena‘referralorder’arerequiredtomeet withayouthoffendingpaneloftwolocalcommunityrepresentativesandayouthworkertoagreea contractofactionstorepaythedamagecausedbytheiroffenceandtoaddresstheriskfactorsthat

29

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

mightleadtofutureoffending.Thevictim–wherethereisone–isalsoinvitedtoattendthemeeting togivehisorhersideofthestoryandsuggestreparations.Thecontractisthenmonitoredand supportprovidedtotheoffendertofulfilthecommitmentsbytheendofthereferralorder’sduration (threeto12months). Inevitably,therehavebeenteethingproblemsandregionaldifferencesinhowwellreferralordershave worked,inparticularinachievingvictimattendance.However,theyhavebeengenerallyviewedasa preferablewayofdealingwithnon-seriousoffending,withhighcompletionratesandrelativelylow re-offendingrecords(Rogers2005). Wewouldhighlightthreeweaknessesofthecurrentsystem.Thefirstproblemisthattheprofileof referralordersisstillverylow.Membersofthepublicwhoarenotpanelvolunteersareunlikelytobe awarethatyoungoffendersarebeingheldtoaccountinthiswaybytheirlocalcommunity,andthat theycanberequiredto‘payback’tothevictimandthecommunityfortheeffectsoftheiroffending. Thelackofawarenessmeansthatthepotentialimprovementinthelegitimacyofnon-custodial sentenceshasnotbeenachieved.Thepublicandmediastillthinkofnon-custodialdisposalsasa‘letoff’wheninfacttheyshouldbeverychallengingfortheoffender,andshouldputpowerinthehands ofthecommunityitself. Thesecondproblemisthatreferralordersaremadebythecriminalcourts,andthuscanbeseenasa formofpunishment,ratherthanatruealternativeapproachthatcandivertyoungpeopleawayfrom criminalisation.Referralordersthusmaynotavoidtheproblemsofstigmatisationandlabellingthat areassociatedwitharrest,charge,prosecutionandtrialinacriminalcourt.Thereforeitmaybeargued thatthisisnottruecommunityjusticebutatag-onattheendofthetraditionalcriminalprocess. Thirdly,thescopeofreferralordershas,untilrecently,beenrestrictedtounder-18sandtofirstcourt convictionswherethedefendantpleadsguilty.Giventhesuccessofcommunityjusticeingeneral– andreferralordersinparticular–theseapproachesshouldbeextendedtoolderyouthsandfor subsequentnon-severeoffending. Referralordersarejustonewayinwhichrestorativecommunityjusticeprinciplesarebeing implementedinyouthjusticesystems.NewZealandhasfamouslypioneeredarestorativejustice approachforyoungoffenderssince1989usingfamilygroupconferencesasthemainapproach.This innovationhasstimulatedchangeclosertohome,e.g.inScotlandandNorthernIreland.InNorthern Ireland,restorativejusticehasbeenintroducedmoresystematicallythroughtherestorative conferencingprocess.Therestorativeconference–orameetingheldbetweenapersonresponsiblefor acrime,thevictimandothermembersofthecommunity–hasbeenmorethoroughlyintegratedin NorthernIrelandasanalternativetothetraditionalcriminaljusticesystem.Ratherthanbeingreserved asadisposalattheendofthepoliceandcourtprocess,restorativejusticeisthemainwayinwhich offendingisdealtwith(CriminalJusticeInspectionNorthernIreland2008).Whilerestorativejusticeis lessafeatureoftheScottishyouthjusticesystem,italsoprovideslessonsforEnglandinthesense thatthemajorityofyoungoffenders(upto16yearsold)aredivertedtothechildren’shearing system,whichhasstrongelementsofcommunityjustice.Onlythemostseriousyoungoffendersare prosecutedinthecriminalcourtsinScotland(althoughaweaknessofthesystemnorthoftheborder isthetreatmentof16-and17-year-oldsasadults). GiventhesuccessofadiversionaryapproachtooffendingwithintheUK,thisisthepathofreform thatEnglandandWalesshouldfollow.WearguethatEnglandandWalesshouldintroduceamuch widerandmoreintegratedsystemofcommunityjusticepanelsasthestandardapproachforminorto medium-severityoffending.Theformalcriminaljusticesystemshouldbereservedasalastresortfor seriousoffending,ratherthanasthedefaultfornon-severeyouthcrime. Asdiscussed,wehavetakenadeliberatelybroadapproachtothedefinitionofcommunityjustice.This shouldallowformoretailoredprocessestobedevelopedfordifferenttypesofoffender.Asarecent majorreviewoftheevidencehasshown,differenttypesofcommunityjusticeprocessworkfor differentkindsofpeople(ShermanandStrang2007).Forexample,restorativejusticeworksbetter withcrimesinvolvingpersonalvictimsthanforso-called‘victimlesscrimes’(suchaspossessionof drugs).Forthosetypesofcrimes,moreeducational,treatmentandrisk-focusedinterventions,based

30

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

inthecommunity,wouldbemoreeffectivethanavictim-focusedapproach.Arangeofdiversions, includingdifferenttypesofrestorativejusticeandotherapproaches,shouldthereforebeavailable, undertherubricofcommunityjusticepanels. Itisimportantthatcommunityjusticeisnotseenasa‘letoff’foryoungoffenders,orasignalthat societytoleratescrime.Thatitisnotissuggestedbytwoconsiderations. First,itcanleadtomoreoffendersbeingidentifiedanddealtwith.Whenrestorativejusticehasbeen usedasadiversionawayfromtheformalcriminaljusticesystem–forexampleinprojectsinNewYork andCanberra–ithasledtotwicetofourtimesasmanyoffencesbeing‘broughttojustice’.In Scotland,wherethereisatieredapproachtoyouthoffending(althoughnotcommunityjusticeper se),ratesofformalprocessingofyoungpeoplehaveincreased,suggestingthatgreaterconfidencein theprocessleadstomoreyoungpeoplebeingheldtoaccountthaninEngland(BottomsandDignan 2004).Ifagenciesotherthanjustthepolicecanreferayoungpersontocommunityjusticethenitcan lowerthethresholdforinterventionwithoutthedamagingeffectsofcriminalisation.Inconjunction with‘tierone’above,thisapproachcouldmeanamoreactivistapproachtobehaviourproblems beforetheyhavebecomemoreserious. Second,itcanbemorechallengingthanthetraditionalcriminaljusticesystem.Byfocusingonthe individualsenablingcommunitymemberstoconfrontthemwiththeconsequencesoftheirbehaviour, communityjusticecanbemoredifficultfortheoffenderthanthedepersonalised,procedure-focused courtprocess.Facedwithlocalcommunityvolunteersitisdifficultforoffendersnottoengage genuinelyintheissuesoftheiroffendinganditsconsequences,aswellasdiscussingthe(sometimes intenselypersonalandpainful)requirementsforprogressoutofmisbehaviour. Communityjusticepanelscanalsoserveusefullyasamethodfordealingwithwideryouthbehavioural problems.Forexample,theSSPCpartnershipdescribedattieronecould‘referup’toarestorativeor communityjusticepanelifitwasfeltthatbeingchallengedbycommunitymembersandfocusingon theimpactoftheirbehaviouronvictimswouldbeaneffectiveapproach. Restorativejusticecanbeeffectiveevenwithseriouscrimes.Infactevidencefromscientifictrials suggestsrestorativejusticeseemstoreduceoffendingmoreeffectivelywithmore,ratherthanless, seriouscrimes,andthosewithamoreobviousvictim(ShermanandStrang2007).Restorativejustice isalsomoreconsistentlyeffectivewithviolentcrime. Restorativejusticecanalsobemoreeffectivethanincarcerationinreducingreoffendinginyoung adultoffenders.Forexample,aCanadianstudyfoundthatrestorativejusticehadamuchlower reconvictionrate(11percent)thanprison(27percent)forthatagegroup.Whereasatpresent referralordersareonlyavailable(asadisposalofthecriminalcourt)for‘youthoffenders’inEngland (10-to17-year-olds),theevidencesuggeststhatitshouldbeextendedasanalternativetocustody foradults(ShermanandStrang2007).Itisalsoclaimedthattherecouldbeagreaterrolefor restorativejusticeincustodyandresettlement. Theevidenceontheeffectivenessofrestorativejusticeforseriouscrimesandyoungadultsneedsto bebalancedagainstthewiderobjectivesoftheyouthjusticesystem–includingtheneedforpublic protection.Wewillarguethattheoptionofcriminalprosecutionandcustodyneedstoberetainedfor certainkindsofoffending(seebelow)andalsoforpoliticallegitimacy.Thereis,therefore,agoodcase forsayingthatcommunityjusticeisa‘tough’option.Thiscaseneedstobemadetothepublic.In ordertodothisitwillbeimportanttocommunicatecommunityjusticeasbeingatoughoption,and toengagethecommunityinordertoensureitisaslegitimateasthecriminaljusticesystem.Therewill needtobeaconcertedefforttopromotecommunityjustice.Asdiscussed,referralordershavebeen under-soldtothepublicwhostilltendtoviewanythingotherthancustodyasa‘let-off’.As communityjusticeisextendedfrombeingadisposalofthecriminaljusticesystemtothemainstream approachtodealingwithmostyouthcrime,itwillhavetobecommunicatedeffectivelytothepublic. Therearemanywaysinwhichthiscantakeplace.Forexample,successfulcasestudieswhereyoung offendershadbeenabletostopoffendingandbecomecontributingcitizenscouldbecommunicated throughthemediaordirectlythroughpostersandadverts.Victims’storiesofhowtheoffenderhad

31

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

repairedtheeffectsoftheircrimecouldalsobepromoted.Thesewouldneedtomatchthesimple narrativeofacriminalbeingcaughtandpunishedbyimprisonment,andwouldhavetotellstories aboutindividualsratherthanpresentstatistics,whichlackpubliccredibility.Communityjusticewould needtoenterpopularculture. Thiswouldbestbeachievedinsofarascommunityjusticebecameembeddedinthecommunity,witha diverserangeofrepresentativesinvolvedinnegotiatingtheactionsthattheoffenderhastofollow.A probleminsomeareasisthatcurrentyouthoffendingpanels,theactivecitizenswhoimplement restorativejustice,areoftennotrepresentativeofthecommunity.Oneapproachmightbetomake communityjusticepanelsevenmorelocalisedthanthecurrentlocalauthorityarea.However,this couldleadtoproblemsinrecruitingenoughpeople,orinsituationswherethepanelmembersare likelytoknow(orcomeintocontactwith)theoffenderandtheirassociatesoutsidethepanelsetting. Localareaswouldneedtofindawiderrangeofwaysinwhichcommunitymemberscouldget involvedincommunityjustice,forexample,consultingcommunities(andgroupswithinthem)onhow differentoffencesshouldberepaidbyoffenders. Therewouldalsoneedtobeotherimprovementstothecurrentprocessesforreferralorders.For example,bettercommunicationwithvictimswillbecrucialtoensurethattheyparticipatewherethat isappropriateandthebenefitsforthemarerealised.Therearealsomoreinnovativewaysinwhich victimscanbenefitfromcommunityjusticethaninface-to-facemediationordirectlyprovided reparation(forexample,diggingthevictim’sgarden).Onelocalyouthoffendingteamhasexplored workingwithaTimeBankproject.Offenderscontributeanumberofhoursofvoluntaryworktothe TimeBank,accruinganumberofcreditsthatcanberedeemedbythevictims.Thisapproachshouldbe pilotedformally. Theinvolvementoflocalpeopleincommunityjusticecouldalsocreateapoolofadvocatesand champions.Althoughtheirinvolvementasvolunteerswouldofcoursebeanonymousifpreferred, thosewhowereinterestedinpromotingthesuccessesofcommunityjusticecouldbeengagedin activitiesfromspeakingatcommunitymeetingstopoliticalconferences,schoolassembliesandtalking tochurch-goersorlocalmedialiaison.Localopinionleaderscouldalsobeengagedbythose administeringcommunityjustice,eithertobeinvolvedthemselvesortopromotethework(building onthesuccessofSmartJustice,thecampaignbasedatthePrisonReformTrust,inengagingWomen’s Institutesincallingforpenalreform). Thecommunityjusticeapproachcanonlybeexpectedtohavealimitedimpactunlessitis underpinnedbyarangeofeffectiveinterventionstotackletheriskoftheoffendercommittingfurther crime.Inthecaseofexistingreferralorders,theseinterventionsaretheresponsibilityoftheyouth offendingteam,andthisprovisionmayneedtobestrengthenedandbroadenedinitsapplication. Theseinterventionsshouldbebasedontheevidenceofeffectiveness,asoutlinedearlierinthereport. Inbrief,offendersshouldreceive‘developmental’interventionsthattackletheirspecificriskfactors; relatetothelevelofoffending;takeplaceincommunitysettings;respondtooffenderlearningstyles; tacklemultipleneeds;anddevelopcognitive,behaviouralandinter-personalskills.Aswellasfocusing ontheindividual,communityjusticeprocesseswouldhavetheopportunitytoaddresswiderfactorsin localyoungpeople’slives.Thesewouldincludefamily,school,peergroupandcommunity-based interventions.Communityjusticeshouldthereforebeagatewaytoarangeofeffective,well-run interventions.Communityjusticepanelswouldbetrainedandadvisedastotheeffectivenessand appropriatenessofdifferentinterventions.

Tier3 Thecommunityjusticeinterventionsdescribedabovewouldnothaveuniversalapplication.In particular,theydependontheoffendercooperatingwiththeprocess.Offendersmaybelikelyto cooperatewiththecommunityjusticeprocessiftheirguiltisuncontested.Theywillalsobemotivated ifcommunityjusticeisofferedasanalternativetoamorepunitivecriminalsystem.Wethusfollowthe evidenceinrecommendingtheintroductionofcommunityjustice(includingrestorativejustice)forat leastmedium-severityoffences,includingviolentcrime.Moreseriousoffences,includingthosewhich involvedangertothepublic,shouldstillbedealtwithinthecriminalcourts.Howeverthereisstilla

32

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

classofoffenceswhichwhilenotsuitableforcommunityjusticecanbedealtwithatalowerlevelof formalitythaninthecriminalcourts. InScotland,severeoffencescanbeprosecutedinthecriminalcourt.Non-severeyouthoffendersare dealtwithinarelativelywelfare-orientatedchildren’shearingsystem.Buttheprocessdependsonthe admissionofguiltbythechild,sothatthehearingcanfocusondealingwiththecauses.Thereis anotherinterimprocessfornon-severeoffenceswhereguiltiscontested,basedinthesheriff’scourt. Thisisalessformalprocessthantheadultcriminalcourt,withabasisincivilratherthancriminallaw. Whendealingwithnon-severecasesthatwouldnormallybeaddressedatachildren’shearing, sheriff’scourtsdonotsetthesentencethemselves.Thesherifffocusesonestablishingguiltor innocence.Theyoungpersonisthenreferredbacktothechildren’shearingifguiltisestablished (BottomsandDignan2004). AsimilarsystemcouldbeimplementedinEnglandandWalesforcasesthatcouldbeaddressedby communityjusticepanelsbutwhereguiltiscontested.Becausecommunityjusticepanelsarenot courtsoflaw,trialswouldneedtobeheardinamoreformalprocess.However,thecurrentcriminal youthcourtsystemisnotfitforthispurpose–abroaderissuewhichwillbeaddressedlaterinthis section.Itsprimaryfocusisontheestablishmentofguilt,ratherthanonaddressingthecausesand makingreparations. Wepropose,therefore,thatnon-severecrimeswhereguiltiscontestedshouldbeheardbyacivil youthcourt.Thesewouldnothavesentencingpowers;suchpowerswouldbereservedbythe communityjusticepanelandthecourtwouldconcentratepurelyonestablishingguilt.Theadvantage ofacivilcourtprocesswouldbethatitislessformalandconfusingforthoseinvolved;thatitwould haveagreaterfocusonthevictimasa‘plaintiff’representedbytheprosecutor(ratherthanthevictim beingexcludedbya‘crownprosecution’);anditwoulduseacivilstandardofproof,inotherwords thatguiltwouldhavetobeestablishedasabalanceofprobability,ratherthanprovedbeyond reasonabledoubt. Thejustificationforthisloweringoftheburdenofprooffornon-severecrimesisthattheyoung personwouldnotbelabelledacriminalasaresult,andwouldthenbereferredbacktoasecond-tier communityjusticepaneltoagreemeasurestoaddresscausesandpay-backtothevictimand community.Ineffect,therefore,thisproposaloffersanew,‘fairdeal’foryouthjustice–alower standardofproofforamoreproblem-solvingapproachfornon-severecrimes.Sincethecommunity panelsfocusmoreontheproblemsintheyoungperson’slife,therearebenefitstothedefendantof acceptingthistrade-off.Forvictimsandcommunities,itwouldensurethatmoreoffenceswere broughttojusticewithoutthenegativeimpactsofacriminaljusticeapproach. Asdiscussed,theseideasdrawontheequivalentprocessinScotlandofthesheriffs’courtsand children’shearingsoperatinginparallel,onefocusingonguiltandonefocusingontreatment.The introductionofanequivalentsysteminEnglandandWales,withyouthcivilcourtsandcommunity justicepanels,wouldbeaninnovationintacklingyouthcrime.Webelievethatitwouldimproveon thecurrent,single-tiercriminaljusticeapproach.However,itwouldneedtobephasedinwithaseries ofpilotstoestablishhowitcouldworkinpractice. Theintroductionofanextralayerintoourtieredapproachincreasesitscomplexityandraises questionsabouttherightsofthedefendanttoatrialwithacriminalburdenofproof.Whileweargue thatthisrepresentsafairdeal,someelementsofthecurrentsystemcouldberetainedasachoicefor defendants.Therefore,ifayoungpersonwereaccusedofanoffencetheydenied,theycouldhavethe choiceofacivilyouthcourthearingoracriminalyouthcourthearing.Thelatterwouldhaveahigher standardofproof,butwouldbringwithitamoreformalprocessandawiderrangeofmorepunitive sentencesandacriminalrecordifguiltwereestablished.

Tier4 Notwithstandingtheaboveproposals,wedonotgosofarastoarguethatthereshouldbeno recoursetocriminaljusticeforchildrenandyoungpeople.Thisispartlyduetopoliticalconsiderations –citizensarenotpreparedtoraisetheageofcriminalresponsibilitybecausetheyperceivethatas

33

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

sendingasignalthatyouthcrimeisacceptable.Butitisalsobecauseofthewideraimsoftheyouth justicesystemasdiscussed,whichincludeholdingoffenderstoaccountandachievingjusticefor victims.Thereforewearguethatthecriminaljusticeapproach–basedontrialinayouthcriminal court–wouldstillbeavailable,butwouldbereservedforoffenderswhoposeathreattosocietyand whosecrimescouldnotbedealtwithbyacommunityjusticepanellegitimatelytothesatisfactionof victimsandthepublic.Theyouthcriminalcourtwouldalso,asdiscussed,beavailableasanoptionfor defendants(asthecrowncourtisanoptionforadultdefendants). Undertheproposedtieredsystem,theyouthcriminalcourtwoulddealwithacaseloadinwhicha higherproportionofcasesthanatpresentwouldbeserious,sincemostothercaseswouldbediverted tocommunityjusticeorcivilyouthcourt.Bothcustodialsentencesandcommunitysentences(with strongelementsofsupport)wouldremainavailable.Casesthatdonotrequirerelativelyhighlevel sentencescouldbe‘referreddown’tocommunityjusticeandthecivilcourttier,ratherthanbeing dealtwithatthecriminalcourtlevel.However,althoughwearguethatthereshouldstillremaina criminalcourtoptionforsevereoffenders,wedonotbelievethatthecurrentcourtprocessisfitfor purpose.Therestofthissectiondiscussestheproblemswiththeyouthcourtprocessesandproposes solutionstoensurethatyouthjusticefocusesonreducingfuturevictimisation. Deliveringthisvisionofareformedyouthcourtsystemrequiresarangeoffurtherreformstoimprove informationavailableinmakingdecisions,focusonprotectingyoungpeopleandthepublicand ensureappropriatespecialisation.Inparticular,iftheyouthjusticesystemisseriousabouttackling futureoffendingratherthanjustblindlyprocessingoffenders,thenthereneedstobeaconsistent feedbackofinformationthroughoutthesystem.Allagenciesintheyouthjusticesystemshouldknow howwelltheyarecontributingtotheobjectiveofreducingoffending.Thismayinvolvesettingup newsystemstomonitorex-offendersinordertotracktheirstatuswithinsixmonths,oneortwoyears, whichmayprovokeconcernsaboutsurveillanceandcivilliberties.However,sincetheaimoffuture monitoringwouldbetoimproveeffortstoreducecrime(including,wheretheevidenceshows, reduceduseofformalcriminalproceedingsandcustody),theoverallimpactwouldbetoimprovecivil libertiesforvictimsandex-offenders(AuditCommission2004). Itmightalsoprovecontroversialwithmagistratesifitmeantthatdatawerecollectedandpublished thatshowedthere-offendingratesofoffenderssentencedintheircourts,whichcouldbeperceived asathreattotheirindependence.Youthcourtsarenotopentothepublic,buttheirdecisionsare crucialtothedeliveryofreducingre-offending,aswellasdeterminingtheallocationofsignificant publicresources(nottomentionthedenialoffreedom).Transparentinformationonperformance wouldimproveaccountability,whichisnecessarytosafeguardindependentdecision-making.Better feedbackshouldbewelcomedbymagistratesinordertoimprovetheirdecision-making.Itcouldalso reducethepressurefromthemediaandpublicopiniontopasstoughersentencesfortheirownsake. Currently43percentofmagistratessaythispressureinfluencestheirdecisions(AuditCommission 2004). Aswiththeexistingtarget,thesystematicmeasurementofre-offendingcouldtakeintoaccountthe circumstancesoftheex-offenderssothatperformancecanbecomparedwiththepredictedfuture offendingrate.Butitshouldalsotakeintoaccountthefrequencyandseverityofoffending.A systematicapproachfocusingonre-offendingwouldalsoimprovethequalityofevidenceonthe impactofdifferentapproaches.Thiswouldenabletheyouthjusticesystemtoevolveonthebasisof whatworks,ratherthanonthebasisofpoliticalwhimorprofessionalfashions. Youthcourtsmustalsohaveanewfocusonchildprotection.Criminalcourtsdonothavethepower– orexpertise–toidentifyprotectionneedsandenforceaction.Thismeans–totakearealexample– thatatraffickedchildconvictedforcrimesuchasshoplifting,whomayhavecommittedthecrimefor theirtrafficker–couldbedischargedfromcourtwithoutanyassessmentoftheirsafety.Aradical approachtothisproblemwouldbetoreversetheseparationoftheprotectionandcriminalcourt systemsimplementedin1989.MagistrateandpenalreformcampaignerChrisStanleyhasbeen advocatingthisforseveralyears(see,forexample,Bond2000).Thiswouldmeanthatthesame institutionsandworkforceswouldbedealingwithcaseswherechildrenwereatriskandwherethey hadbeenchargedwithacrime.Thiswouldhavetheadvantageofshiftingtheideologyoftheyouth

34

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

criminalcourtstofocusmoreontheneedsof,andriskstooffendingchildren.Generalistjuvenile courtswouldbeabletoplacevulnerableoffendingchildrenundertheprotectionofsocialservices. Thischangecould,however,requiremajorrestructuringthatwouldbehighlycostlyfinanciallyandin termsoftime.Therecouldalsobeoppositionfromchildprotectiongroupswhomightseethatthe stigmaofchildprotectionprocedurescouldbeincreasedandat-riskyoungpeoplecouldfeellabelled ascriminals. Theremaybemoreimmediateandlesscomplicatedsolutionstothisproblem.Withoutremovingthe distinctionbetweenthecriminalandprotectionsystems,youthcriminalcourtscouldbegivengreater protectionpowerstoensurethatat-riskchildrencanbereferredforaprotectionassessmentthatthen reportsbacktothesamecourt,orachildprotectioncourt.Therearepotentialriskswiththis approach,particularlywherethereisashortageofsocialworkersworkingwithchildrenwhocanmake therelevantassessmentandinturnalackoffosterplacementstocareforthosechildren.Thereisalso afairnessissuewherebybeingcaughtcommittingacrimeenablesachildtosomehowreceivehigher prioritythanachildwhoisequallyatriskbuthasnotbeenarrestedbythepolice.Theseissueswould needtobeaddressed,butthemainpointremains–thereisaloopholewherebyvulnerablechildren comeintocontactwiththeauthoritiesbut,becauseofthecriminalfocusoftheyouthcourt,their risksarenotaddressed.ThishasbeendescribedtousasbeingaVictoriaClimbiéorBabyPwaitingto happen. Finally,reformedyouthcourtsshouldbemorespecialistandprofessional.Ratherthanbeingasystem staffedbyprofessionalswithanexpertiseinworkingwithchildren,youthcourtshaveeffectively becomealessprofessional,lower-skilledcornerofthelegalsystem.Althoughyouthcourtsarelegally separatefromtheadultcriminalsystem,judgesandadvocatesintheyouthcourtdonotneedtobe speciallytrainedorqualified.Moreover,sinceyouthcourtsarenotopentothepublicandmedia,they arelessscrutinisedthanadultcourts.Theyhavethereforebecomea‘safe’institution.Forexample, youngprosecutionanddefencesolicitorsbothusetheyouthcourtasatraininggroundtolearn advocacyskillsbefore‘graduating’totheadultjusticesystem.Thisimpliesadisregardforthe seriousnessoftheimpactoftheyouthcourtexperienceonyoungpeople’s(orvictims’)lives.Whilea youngsolicitor’smistakecanbeausefullearningexperienceforthem,itcouldleadtoacriminal conviction,lossoflibertyandreducedchancesofleadingasuccessfullifeintegratedintosociety. Magistratesandjudgeswhoworkacrossbothadultandyouthjusticesystemscouldbringthesame, morepunitiveandlessproblem-solvingapproachoftheadultcourttotheyouthsystem.The implicationofthistrendisthatyoungpeopleaccusedofanoffencearemorelikelytobevictimsofa miscarriageofjustice. Whilewestillagreethatthereshouldbeacriminaljusticeprocessforchildrenandyoungpeople,we arguethatthesystemshouldbemoredistinctfromtheadultjusticesystemandshouldhavea specialistworkforcethatistrainedinworkingwithchildren.Theyouthcourtshouldnotbeseenas ‘lower’thantheadultcourt,orasasafetraininggroundforsolicitors.Beforebeingabletorepresent orprosecuteachild,asolicitorshouldhavetoachievespecialistqualificationsdemonstrating knowledgeoftheyouthjusticesystemandskillsincommunicatingwithchildren. Furthermore,theinequalityofrepresentationintheyouthcourtshouldberedressed.Thosedefending childrenaccusedbythestateofacrimeshouldbeasexperiencedandskilledinthelawasthose prosecuting.Asmentioned,oneofthereasonsforthelowstatusofyouthcourtworkisthatitisnot opentopublicormediascrutiny(exceptunderstrictcontrols).Therearedebatesaboutwhetherthe youthcourts(criminalorfamily/childprotection)shouldbemademoretransparent.Optionsthat shouldbeconsideredincludeindependentinspectionorpubliclynominatedobservers. Oneideamightbetoensurethatthereismoreaccountabilityforacasethatisnotheardbecauseof anunnecessarydelay(forexampleduetomissingfilesorevidencenotsubmittedtothedefence).At presenttheonlyrecourseforthecourtistoreprimandandwritetotheculpableparty(beitthe prosecutionordefence),andthereislittleincentivetoensureacasegoesahead.Butthesedelays haverealcosts.Amoreeffectivesolutionmightbeforthecourttochargetherelevantpartyforsome ofthecostofthedelay.Thisapproachisusedinotherpublicservices,forexamplechargingthe infrastructurecompanyfordelaystotrains,orcharginglocalauthoritiesfordelaysindischargefrom

35

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

hospital.Continuingwiththecurrentinefficientandprocedurallyunjustsystemservesneitherthe achievementofjusticeforvictims,norvalueformoney,noreffectivereductionofre-offending.It wouldalsodolittleforyoungadultoffenders.

Newnon-custodialsentences,prioritisingwork-basedinterventions Therearealreadyanumberofeffectivecommunityinterventionswhichcanbeusedbyyouthcourts withyoungpeoplewhooffend.Thenextreformswillintroduceascaledapproachwheretheseare combinedinonemulti-optionorderthatcanthenbetailoredtothepreciserisksassociatedwithany oneoffender.Thisapproachhasthebenefitofbeingmoreunderstandableformagistrates,offenders, victimsandthepublicandcanensurethatinterventionsarepersonalisedtotacklefuturereoffending.Theaimisalsotomoveawayfromaladderofsentences,wherebyeachtimeanoffender re-offendstheymoveuptheladder,whetherornotthehighertariffsentenceismoreproportionate oreffective. Itwillbeimportanttoensurethatthenewsystemhascredibilitywithvictims,communitiesandthe generalpublicifitisgoingtosuccessfullyreplacethecurrenthighuseofcustody.However,theaim ofmakingcommunitysentencestough-lookingshouldnotoverridetheaimofensuringthattheyare effective.Atpresent,manyofthealternativestocustodyplacealargeemphasisoncontroland supervision–forexample,placingelectronicallymonitoredtagsandcurfewsonoffendersand requiringintensivesupervisioninordertocontroloffendersratherthanaddressthecausesof offending.Thecoercivenessofcommunitysentencesislikelytobeafactorintheirrelativelackof success–whilecustodyisstillmoredamagingtotheriskoffutureoffending,non-custodialsentences involvingsuchrestrictionsarenotfarbehind. Makingcommunitysentencesmorework-orientatedmaybeonewayinwhichtheaimsof‘toughness’ andeffectivenesscanbothbeachieved.Lackofstructuredactivities,poorskillsandselfesteemareall riskfactorsthatwork-focusedinterventionscouldaddress.Atthesametime,requiringoffendersto undertakeworkappealstothepunitivedemandsofthepublicandcouldreplacethepressurefor moreuseofcustody.Workexperiencehasbeenanimportantpartoftherehabilitationofyoung peopleincustody.Forinstance,projectsofferingpracticalexperiencetoex-inmateshavebeenin operationinrecentyears;theNationalGrid-ledYouthOffenderProgrammeisanexample(The SMARTCompany2007).Theseprojectsfocusonprovidingskillsandusefulexperiencetoenable youngpeopletoturntheirlivesaround.Thereseemsnoreasonwhyasimilarapproachcouldnotbe adoptedwithnon-custodialsentences.

TheDanish‘Spearhead’system Workisrarelyexploredasanalternativetocustody. ‘Communityservice’isnotanoptionforyoungpeople andwouldplacetoomuchemphasisonnon-constructive punishmentsuchaspaintingwallsorcleaningstreets. Withoutafocusonskills-development,workasa communityalternativetocustodyisunlikelytobe effective.However,aprojectinCopenhagen,Denmark called‘Spyspidsen’(‘Spearhead’)hasdevelopeda programmeofcommunity-basedwork-experience placementsforyoungpeoplenotineducation, employmentortraining.Linkingyoungpeople’sskillsand ambitionswithlocalsmallemployers,theprojectalso acceptsreferralsfromcriminalcourtsforyoungpeople (overtheageof15)whocanundertakeaplacementasan alternativetocustody.Placementsareparttimeandpaid attheminimumwageuptothelevelofbenefit entitlement.Therestofthetime,participantsareoffered

catch-uplessonsinbasicskillssuchasliteracyand numeracy. Theprojecthassofarbeenpositivelyevaluated,although onlythroughaqualitativestudy(measuringemployers’ andyoungpeople’scompletionandsatisfactionwith placements).Butanimportantelementintheprojectisits cross-partypopularity.Politiciansofboththeright (includingthefar-rightDanishPeople’sParty)andthe left(excepttheCommunistParty)haveendorsedthe approachasbothfocusingonimprovingwelfareand tacklingrisksoffutureoffending,andalsorequiring ‘feckless’youthtoworkconstructivelyratherthanlaze aroundincustodyoronbenefits. Werecommendthatasimilarapproach,focusingonwork asanalternativetocustody,couldprovideawaythrough thecontinuingproblemofperceptionofpublicand politicaldesireforcustodyandofcommunityalternatives asbeinga‘let-off’.

36

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Strongerlocalandnationalpartnershipsandanewcommissionermodel Thetieredapproachoutlinedabove,andthereformstoyouthcourts,wouldrequiresignificant structuralreformtotheexistingsysteminordertocreatemorelocalised,community-rootedand diversionaryinstitutions.Althoughstructuralreformcanbecostlyanddelaychange,aswehave arguedthroughoutthisreportthecurrentrelianceontheyouthcriminaljusticesystemalonemilitates againstaneffectivepreventativeandpopularalternativeapproach. Theprinciplessetoutinthepreviouschapteremphasisedtheneedforgreatercommunity engagementandlocalisminyouthjustice(andincriminaljusticemorebroadly).Thisprincipleshould underpinneworganisationalstructures.Asdiscussed,localareasshouldcreateSSPC-style partnershipssothatagenciescanworktogetherwiththesharedagendaofyouthcrimereduction. Thesewouldneedtoworkcloselywithexistingcrimeanddisorderreductionpartnershipsbutwould haveamorespecificfocusonriskfactors. Alocalistapproachtoyouthjusticeshouldbeexploredasanalternativetothetop-downtargets system.Youthjusticebudgets–includingallocationsforpreventionprogrammes,diversion,court servicingandcommunitysentencesaswellasresourcescurrentlyallocatedcentrallytocustodial institutions–couldbedevolvedtolocalareas.Localbodiescouldbeestablishedasindependent youthjusticetrusts(similartoprimarycaretrustsforhealth)orundertheauspicesofexistingyouth offendingteamsorchildren’strusts.Thebodiesresponsibleformanagingthefundswouldneedto havesubstantialoperatingfreedomwithinappropriatefinancialmanagementstandards.Theywould alsobeheldaccountabletothelocalpopulation,eitherthroughsomeformofdirectorindirect electionorrepresentation,orscrutinybyexistingelectedlocalauthorities,orboth. SomeoftheseideasarealreadybeingexploredinaprogrammeoverseenbytheInternationalCentre forPrisonStudies,whichisapplyinglessonsfromtheAmericanconceptof‘justicereinvestment’.Their recentreport(AllenandStern2007)highlightsthepotentialbenefitsanddrawbacksofthisapproach forthewholecriminaljusticesystem.Thereiscurrentlyaninquiryintojusticereinvestmentbeing conductedbytheCommonsJusticeSelectCommittee. Wewouldlendoursupporttothefurtherexplorationofthisapproach,inparticularfortheyouth justicesystemwherethereisalreadyamulti-agencyapproachandsomelocalinfrastructureinyouth offendingteamsthatcouldbebuilton.Localareaswouldthenberesponsibleforallocatingresources onprevention,rehabilitationandpunishment,includingcustodyplacesthatwouldbelocally commissionedandfunded.Thiswouldcreateasystemthatwasmorelocally-focusedandableto respondtothevaryingneedsofthecommunity,ratherthanpurelyoncentraltargets.Importantly,it wouldcreateamorerealisticapproachtothedistributionofresourcesforyouthjustice.Trustswould needtoworkoutamoreholisticstrategyforreducingcrimeandre-offendingintheirlocality.Itwould allowthemthefreedomtoinnovatewithlocalprogrammes(ashasalreadyhappenedinsomeareas, suchasWales)andlearnfromthesuccessesofotherareas.Itcouldalsoimprovelocalengagement andtrustinyouthjusticedecision-making.Thereareopportunitiestointegrateprevention, rehabilitationandpunishmentinitiativesintoexistinglocalprogrammesforeducation,youthservices andsocialcohesion.AsAllenandSternargue: ‘Ifitispossibletobringtogethertheactivitytomakeaneighbourhoodsafer andmorecohesivewiththeworkofdealingwiththeindividualswhoarein troublewiththelaw,effectivenessshouldbeconsiderablyenhanced.’ (AllenandStern2007:45) Again,theseideasrunintocontroversywhenthedecision-makingpointsareanalysed.Muchofthe distributionofexistingyouthjusticebudgetsiscurrentlydeterminedbysentencingdecisionsby magistrates,whoseindependenceisrightlyguarded.The‘localist’approachtoyouthjusticecould applytospendingontreatmentprogrammes,thecharacteristicsofthecommunitysentencesavailable tothecourts,pre-courtinterventionsandpreventionprogrammes.Thisonitsownwouldbeastep forward.However,thedevelopmentofamorelocalistapproachtogoverningandfinancingyouth justicecouldopenupadebateabouttheaccountabilityoftheresourcedecisionsthatmagistrates

37

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

makewhentheychooseamoreexpensivecustodialsentenceratherthanacheaper(andpotentially moreeffective)communitysentence.Afterall,suchdecisionstoimposecustodialsentencesor remandaccountfortwo-thirdsofthetotalyouthjusticeprogrammespending(YouthJusticeBoard 2007). Fromaresource-efficiencypointofview,nottomentionaneffectivenessormoralstandpoint,thereis aneedtorationtheuseofcustodyforyoungpeople.Courtsneedtobetransparentandaccountable, aswellasindependent,intheirdecisions.Lessonswouldneedtobelearnedfromthecurrentmuch moreadvancedreformstocommissioninginhealth,wherethecapacityoflocalprimarycaretruststo commissionintelligentlyisbeingdriventhroughtheWorldClassCommissioningprogramme,while nominalbudgetsarealsobeingdevolvedtopractice-basedcommissioners.Thekeyenabler,inhealth andinyouthjustice,ismoresophisticatedfeedbackofinformationontheperformanceofdifferent partsofthelocalsystem. Atanationallevelthereisalsomoreneedforcoordinatingmachinerythatenablesbutdoesnotdirect improvedlocalperformance.Here,too,lessonscouldbelearnedfromDenmark,whereanational CrimePreventionCouncil(theDKR)bringstogetherrepresentativesfromthefullrangeof organisationsinvolvedinreducingoffending.TheCouncilisabletoagreepoliciesandprotocols,share goodpracticeandinfluencechangelocallywithouthavingtogothroughtheslowandcentralised structureofcentralgovernment. Wehavearguedhereforlong-termstructuralchangestoembedthepreventative,tieredand diversionaryapproach.However,theroleofstructuralchangeisonlytoallowchangesinpracticeand behaviourtobeintroduced.Manyofthereformssuggestedcouldbedevelopedwithinthecurrent frameworkofinstitutions.Policymakersandlocalleadersshouldnotwaituntilstructuralchangeshave beendesignedandimplementedbeforeintroducingnewcommunityjusticealternatives.

38

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

5.Willthepublicsupportpopularpreventionism? ThissectionexploresattitudestoyouthcrimeintheUK,andtestsamoreprogressive,tieredand diversionaryapproachtoreplacethecurrentmodeloftoughpunishmentandcontrol.Toexaminethis issueipprcommissioneddeliberativeworkshops,carriedoutinLondon,NottinghamandBirmingham, toexplorepublicopinioninrelationtothreecorequestions:

•Whatarepeople’sinitialviewsonyoungpeople,youthcrimeandthejusticesystem? •Towhatextentdopeople’sviewsevolveoncetheyareexposedtodifferentlevelsof informationonthistopic?

•Towhatextentdopeopleoptforatieredanddiversionaryapproachtoyouthjustice? Thefindingsandquotesreportedbelowresultfromtheseworkshops.SeeAnnex1fordetailsofhow theworkshopswereconducted.

Attitudestoyouthandyouthcrime Youthoffendingisawidelydiscussedissuewithmuchconflictingcoveragedominatingthemedia. AccordingtoanationalsurveycarriedoutbyKing’sCollegeLondon,42percentofthosepolled believedthathalfofallcrimeswerecommittedbyyoungpeople.Thiscompareswithofficialstatistics thatsuggestthatthepercentageofcrimecommittedbyyoungpeopleismorelikelytobesomewhere between10and20percent.Thesurveyalsoshowedthat64percentclaimedthatmediareportshad informedtheirviews(HoughandRoberts2004). Initiallywhenaskedabouttheterm‘youth’allparticipantsinourippr-commissionedworkshops equatedittocrime,andcameupwithnegativewordssuchas‘threatening’,‘gangs’,‘knives’and ‘damaged’.However,participantsinLondonandBirminghamalsomadepositiveassociationssuchas ‘enthusiasm’,‘ourfuture’,and‘misunderstood’.Allparticipantsagreedthatyouthcrimeisaserious problemandisgettingworse.InBirmingham,however,someparticipantsclaimedthattherehave alwaysbeenproblemswithyouthcrimebutthedifferencenowisthatthemediasensationalisesit. ‘Thereisanawfullotofmedia…mediaisalotmoreintrusive,Iwouldn’tbe surprisedifproportionallytherewasn’tmuchmorecrime.’ (Male,Birmingham) Whenaskedabouttheageatwhichachildcantakefullresponsibilityfortheiractions,most participantssuggestedfrom10orthestartofsecondaryschool. ‘Ithinktheyarestreetwiseearlier,learnrulesyoungerthanIdid.’ (Male, Birmingham) ‘Somebodyat10isintelligentenoughtoknow.’ (Male,London) ‘A10-year-oldknowsthedifferencebetweenrightandwrong.’ (Female, London) However,therewasrecognitionthatachild’sdevelopmentdependsontheirupbringingandthata childmaynotalwaysbeemotionallydeveloped: ‘Childrencan’talwayscontroltheiremotions.’ (Male,London) Therewasacontradictioninhowparticipantsreferredtoyoungpeopleindifferentcontexts.When theparticipantsfocusedontheactualoffencecommitted,theyweremoreinclinedtotalkaboutthe perpetratorasanoffenderratherthanasachild.However,atothertimes,theywouldfocusonthe factthatachildisstillemotionallyimmature.Overall,participantsfoundithardtodisentangle negativeandpunitiveattitudesprovokedbytheoffenceitselffromanaturalcompassiontheyfelt towardsyoungpeoplewhomtheystillperceivedasbeingchildren. Participantsmadereferencetothefactthattheywerealsoyoungonce,arguingthatthingswere differentinyearsgoneby–thattherewasmorerespect.Theterm‘respect’wasrepeatedthroughout theworkshops.Beingabletorelatetoyoungpeopleintermsoftheirownyouthhadtwodifferent

39

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

effects:itmadeparticipantsintolerantoftheperceivedlackofdiscipline,especiallyincomparison withhowthingswerebefore.Italsomadesomeparticipantssympathetictowardswhatitisliketobe young. Therewasasensethatyouthcrimehasbecomesomethingthatyoungpeopleareproudof. Participantssuggestedthatratherthanbeingscaredofdoingsomethingwrong,youngoffenders activelyseekoutopportunitiestocommitoffences.Therewasasensethatcurrentyouthculturehas turnedyoungpeople’svaluesupsidedown,makingcrimeseemlikeanattractiveoptionandtheyouth justicesystemunthreatening. ‘Alotofthem,whentheydosomething[crime],they’reproudofit.’(Male, London) ‘ASBOsareseenasabadgeofhonour.’(Female,Norwich) ‘There’stoomuchfreedom,theygetawaywithtoomuch.’ (Female,London) Thereweremixedviewstowardschildrenthroughoutalltheworkshopssoitwasunsurprisingthat whenwepresenteddifferentwaysofdealingwithyouthcrimewereceivedvariedresponsesfromthe participants.Someparticipantsfeltthatyoungpeoplecanstillbeturnedaroundiftheyaregiventhe rightsupport: ‘Totreatthemsoharshlysoyounghardensthemandmakesthemworsein thefuture.’ (Female,Norwich) However,alargenumberofparticipantsdismissedtheideathatputtingayoungpersonfromayoung agethroughthecriminalsystemcanhaveadetrimentaleffectonthem.Onthecontrary,someargued thatyoungpeoplemaybebetteroffinprison.Therewerealsomixedfeelingstowardstheideathata youngpersonundertheageof21canstillbechangedforthebetter. ‘Theygotabettereducationbecausetheywereinside…Theybenefitedfrom beinginside.’ (Male,Norwich) ‘Wethinktheyaredevelopedwaybefore21.’(Female,Birmingham)

Attitudestotheyouthjusticesystem Participants’initialviewsontheyouthjusticesystemwerenegative:thatthesystemisineffectiveand thatithasfailedtodeteryoungpeoplefromcommittingcrimes. ‘Themainthingisthattheyarenotpunishedenough.’(Male,London) ‘Therearenoconsequencestowhattheydo;theyjustthinktheycanget awaywithit;thereisnocomebackonthem.’(Female,Norwich) Thecriminaljusticesystemwascriticisedforitsweaknessandlackoftoughness.However,themain criticismfocusedonitsweakapplication,ratherthanonitsdesign. ‘Thesystemseemssensible,butitistheapplicationofthesystemandthe Judgesthataretoolenient…thereissomethingwrongwithJudgeswhotreat kidstoolightly.’(Male,London) ‘OnpaperitlooksquitegoodbutIdon’tthinkinpracticeitworks.’ (Male, Birmingham) ‘Deterrentsneedtobetougher…whenIwasayoungsteryouwerescaredof doingsomethingwrong.’(Male,Norwich) Therewasalsoafeelingthatforasystemtobeeffectiveitneedstoinstilalevelofrespectandfearin youngpeople. ‘Peopleshouldbescaredofthepolice.’ (Male,London) ‘IfindthatinGermanypeoplearemorelawabiding.Wedon’twanttobea policestatebutthereshouldbemorerespect.’ (Male,London)

40

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

‘Communitypolicemengetlaughedat.’ (Female,London) ‘Prisonsaresuchaneasylife.’ (Female,Norwich) Participantsfeltthatifthesystemweretougherandinstilledmorefearandrespect,itwouldbemore effectiveatdiscouragingyoungpeoplefromcommittingcrimesinthefirstplace.

Differentresponsesareappropriatefordifferentoffences Aftersettinganinitialbaselineonpeople’sinitialattitudestoyouthcrimeandtheyouthjustice system,westartedfilteringdifferentinformationandideasonthetopictoexplorehowpeople’sviews coulddevelop.Whenparticipantswereaskedtodecidewhetheranoffenceshouldbeclassifiedas minor,medium/seriousorveryserious/severe,allagreedonwhichoffenceswereseverebuttherewas discrepancybetweenmediumandminoroffences. Allparticipantsagreedthatminoroffencesshouldincludeoffencesthatdonotcauseharmto individuals.Mediumoffencesweredefinedasthosethathaveacostofsomesort,whetherfinancial, physicalorotherwise.Severeoffencesincludedthosewhichcauseseriousharmtoindividuals. ‘Theminoronesdon’thurtanyone.’(Male,London) Thereweremixedviewsaboutwhether‘possessionofaknife’wasamediumorasevereoffence. Someparticipantsfeltthatpossessionofaknifecouldbejustifiedifusedforself-defenceorwork. Othersfelttherewasnojustificationforcarryingaknife. ‘Itisthesamethingasagun.’ (Female,London) ‘I’mnotsure.Ifsomeone’shadsomeoneharassingthemalotandtheyfear fortheirlivesthenwhatshouldtheydo?’(Male,London) Themajorityagreedthatdifferentoffencesshouldgetdifferentresponsesaccordingtothelevelof gravityandnumberofpreviousconvictionsoftheoffender.Someparticipantsfeltthatalloffences shouldgetthesameinitialtreatment. ‘Acrimeisacrime…’ (Female,Norwich) ‘Atthestarttheyshouldgetthesameresponseasanyminorormediumone couldescalateintoaseriousone.’(Male,Norwich) Participantsfeltthatresponsestooffencesneededtobetoughenoughtoactasadeterrent.

Responsibilityforyouthcrimeshouldbeshared Participantsallocatedresponsibilityforyouthcrimetoawiderangeofparties.However,mostofthe responsibilitywasallocatedtothemedia,peerpressure,lackofdiscipline,government,parents, schools,alcoholanddrugs. Themediawerethoughttohaveadualimpactonyoungpeople.Ononehand,themediashowtoo muchviolence,temptingyoungpeopletocopyviolentbehaviour.Ontheotherhand,somemedia coverageglorifiesyouthcrimetoyoungpeople: ‘Theyseethingsinthepressthattheyaspireto.’ (Male,London) Parentsandschoolswerethoughttoberesponsibleforinstillingdisciplineandsupportingyoung people.Participantssaidthatifyoungpeopleareexposedtoviolenceathometheyseethatasaway oflife. ‘Parentshaveaverybiginfluenceonhowthechildisprogressingandgoing throughlife.’(Male,Birmingham) TheGovernmentwasseentoberesponsibleforyouthcrimeforvariousreasons,includingthejustice systembeingineffective,andalackofopportunitiesintermsofeducation,skillsandjobsforthose whodonotopttogotouniversity.TheGovernmentwasalsoblamedfortakingawayauthorityfrom parents,teachersandschools.

41

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

‘Therearenoapprenticesanymore.’ (Male,Birmingham) ‘Whenitcomestoeducationandopportunities,theGovernmentthinks50per centshouldgouniversitybuttherearenotenoughopportunitiesforothers.’ (Female,Birmingham) ‘Therearenotenoughplacesforteenagerstogotokeepthemactive.’(Male, Norwich) ‘They[government]cutbackonthingsbelowthebareminimum,likewiththe police–theyhaven’tgotenoughpeopletodothejob.’ (Female,Norwich) Therewascriticismoftheroleplayedbysomeindividualsandorganisations–whoweredeemed‘dogooders’–thatdefendtherightsofyoungpeople.Theywereconsideredtoobstructtough approachestoyouthcrime. ‘TheGovernment’supagainstallthedo-gooders.’ (Male,Birmingham) Itwasalsoarguedthatyoungpeople’s‘ignorance’ispartoftheproblem: ‘Dotheyreallyunderstandtheconsequencesoftheiractions?’ (Male,London) Sosignificantcontradictionscanbeseenintheparticipants’attitudes.Ontheonehand,theyfeltthat ayoungpersoncantakeresponsibilityfortheiractionsfromayoungage(10),whileontheother therewasanacknowledgmentofthelimitationsimposedbytheirage.Itseemeddifficultfor participantstoreconcilehostilefeelingstowardsanindividualcommittingoffences(especiallythose thatcausedamagetoothers)andthefactthatmanyoftheyoungpeopletheyreferredtoarestill children.

Theopportunitytomakeamendsiswelcomedbutnotforsevereoffences Wepresentedparticipantswithstatementsrepresentingdifferentapproachestotacklingyouthcrime. Thesewere‘tough’,‘welfarist’and‘tiered/diversionary’approaches,asdiscussedaboveinthisreport. Anelementofthetiered/diversionaryapproachwasthatoffendersshouldmakereparationstovictims andcommunitiesoutsidetheyouthcriminaljusticesystem. Participantswereverykeenontheideaofcommunitypayback,butnotforseverecrimes.They welcomedtheideathatanoffendercommittinganti-socialbehaviourcouldbereprimandedby makingamendstothecommunityandthevictim.Thereweremixedviewsonwhetherthiscouldbe dealtwithoutsidetheyouthcriminaljusticesystem. ‘Makethepunishmentfitthecrime.’(Male,London) Whensevereoffenceswerediscussedparticipantsdidnotoptforthecommunitypaybackoption.It wasfeltbysomethatsevereoffencesshouldreceivetough,evencorporal,punishmenttomatchthe gravityoftheoffence.

Communitiesandschoolsarenotabletodealwithcrime Therewasfrustrationathowthesystemisperceivedasparalysingadults,preventingthemfrom interactingwithyoungpeopleandinterveningwhentheydosomethingwrong.Participantsbelieved thatteachersinparticularoccupyadifficultposition,astheyareprohibitedfrominteractingphysically withchildren.Theexamplewasgivenofhowevenwhenachildfallsintheplayground,teachersare notallowedtotouchthem. ‘Inpastgenerationswhenpoliceandteachershadmoreauthoritytherewas lesscrime…andnowitisallsoftly,softly…’(Male,London) ‘Itallgoesbacktoschool,theydon’tgetreprimandedbyteachers,andifthey [teachers]areharshthenthey’llgetprosecuted.’ (Female,Norwich) Manyfeltinparticularthatadultshadnopoweroveryoungpeople,andbelievedthatparentsnolonger setboundariesfortheirchildren.Participantsfeltdisempoweredanddisrespectedandunabletoturn thingsaroundinthecurrentclimatewheregovernmentputsgreatemphasisonprotectingchildren.

42

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

‘Adultsaremadetofeelguiltier.’ (Male,London) ‘TheGovernmentdoesn’thaveaclue.They’retheonesthatareresponsible forbitbybit,takingawaytheauthorityofteachersandpolice,etcetera.’ (Male,London) ‘Schoolsandparentsdon’tseembeabletodoanything.’ (Female,Norwich) Therewaslittlefaithinthecommunity’sabilitytodealwithyouthcrime.Participantsfeltthatinan idealworldwheretherewasastrongsenseofcommunityitwouldbegoodforthecommunitytobe involved.Theywerenostalgic,perceivingcommunitiesinthepasttohavebeenstrongerandparents, schoolsandpolicetohavehadmoreauthority.Inparticular,participantsdidnotliketheideaofthe communitydealingwithseriouscrimes.Theywereconcernedthatthecommunitywouldbeunableto beunbiased. ‘Familiesandneighbourswouldbebiased…’ (Male,Norwich) Someparticipantsexpressedthatseriouscrimesrequirecorporalpunishment.

Atieredsystemincreasessupportforamoreprogressiveapproach Initialattitudesdemonstratedthattheterm‘youthcrime’isloadedwithnegativeconnotationswhich ledparticipantstobemoreinclinedtooptforquiteatoughresponse.However,theseattitudes evolvedonceweprovidedparticipantswithmoreinformationonthecontextofdifferentoffenders andoffences,whichisnotusuallyinformationthatpeoplearepartyto.Weknowfrompreviousippr workthatprovidingthe‘context’isanessentialpartofpromotingamoreprogressiveapproach (NewmanandLewis2007).Afullerpictureoftheoffendercanmakepeopleconsiderthattheremay beotherreasonsforcommittinganoffencethantheideathatoffendersaresimply‘bad’people. Inordertoprovideparticipantswiththecontextofoffenceswepresentedthemwiththree,fictional, casestudiesandoptionsfortacklingthem.Thecontextprovidedabasicbackgroundontheoffender intermsoftheirfamilylifeandpreviousconvictions.Theoptionsoutlinedrepresentedthree approachesfortacklingyouthcrimeincludingsoft/welfarist,tough/punitiveandtiered/diversionary approaches.Thiswasaturningpointintheworkshop,asamoresympatheticperspectiveamongthe participantscametolight.Providingthecontextofeachoffenderaffectedtheparticipants’ perceptionofeachcasestudy.Overall,participantsineachcasedeliberatedaboutoptions,andafter discussion,werefoundtobeinfavourofanapproachwhichsoughttofindmechanismstodivert youngpeoplefromthecriminaljusticesystem.(SeeAnnex2foradetaileddiscussionoftheresultsof thesecasestudies.)

43

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

6.Conclusion Thisreporthasfourmainthrusts.Youthjustice,atpresentnotsucceedinginreducingreoffending, shouldbereshapedsothatit

•operatesatmorelevelsinsociety,tomatchlevelsofoffendingandanti-socialbehaviour; •reliesmoreonpreventionandlessoncoercion; •avoidsyoungpeoplebeingdrawnintotheformalcriminalcourtssystemwhereverpossible; •ismoretrustedbythepublic. Thusitshouldbetiered,preventative,diversionary and populist. Thereportalsoarguesthattheremitoftheyouthjusticesystemshouldnotstopat17.The suggestednewcommunityjusticealternativesshouldbeavailabletoolderyouths(e.g.18-21)andto youngpersonsaccusedofsubsequentnon-severeoffences.

Recommendationsforimprovingtheeffectivenessoftheexistingyouth courts Tiered

•Establishanewlowerlevel(Tier1)ofyouthjusticewhichaimsatpreventing,and confronting,anti-socialbehaviourandlow-leveloffending;involvingnewpartnershipsrooted inthecommunityanddrawinginalltheagencieswithinfluenceontheexperienceofyoung people,basedonSSPCs(multi-agencyschool,socialservices,policeandcommunitycouncils) suchasexistinDenmarkandEastRenfrewshire,andyoungpeople’sreferralgroups

•Establishanintermediatelevel(Tier2)withcommunityjusticepanelstodealwithnon-severe offences,usingrestorativejusticeprinciples(similartoexistingreferralorderpanels)

•AllowSSPCsandyouthreferralgroupstoreferindividualstocommunityjusticepanels •EstablishanewtypeofScottish-stylecivilyouthcourt(Tier3)alongsidetheexistingyouth courts,operatingatalowerburdenofproof,asanalternativefordefendantswhoadmitguilt andarenotaccusedofseriousoffences;thesecourtstohavestronglinkswithcommunity justicepanels. Morepreventativeandlesscoercive

•IntroducepreventativemeasuresatlocallevelthroughtheSSPCs •Introduceagraduatedapproachtoanti-socialbehavioursothataproportionateresponse (letterorvisitfromapoliceofficerorteacher)canbeusedinitiallywithlow-levelbad behaviour(basedontheapproachtakeninSouthWales)

•Pilotsystemsinwhichbudgetsforyouthjusticearedevolvedlocally,removingresponsibility foryouthcustodycommissioningfromtheYouthJusticeBoard,toensurethecostsofcustody areweighedagainstmorecost-effectivenon-custodialapproaches,whicharealsolikelytodo moretoreducere-offending. Diversionfromarrestandthecriminalcourtsystem

•Allowreferraldirectlytoyoungpeople’sreferralgroupsandcommunityjusticepanelswithout priorinvolvementwiththecourts,sothatnon-seriousoffendersaredivertedfromthecriminal courts

•Divertsomeoffencestonewcivilyouthcourts •Allowindividualsconvictedbythenewcivilyouthcourtstobereferredtocommunityjustice panelsforsentencing.

44

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Moretrustedbythepublic

•Thenewlowesttier(Tier1)andcommunityjusticepanelsatTier2tobebasedinthelocal communitysothatlocalresidentscanengagewithit,e.g.byreferringyoungpersonsto youthreferralgroups

•PilottheintroductionofnewTimeBank-stylevolunteeringsystems,enablingthepublictosee thatcommunitysentencesarenotaneasyoptionforoffenders,andvictimscanreceive recompense,ifpreferred,withoutcontactwiththeoffender

•Maintainandimprove(Tier4)theexistingcriminalcourtssystemforseriousoffences. Effectivenessofexistingyouthcourts(Tier4)

•Improvecourts’understandingoftheeffectsoftheirdecisionsbyintroducinganew requirementtoensurethatinformationonre-offendingisprovidedtomagistrates’courtswith thedataadjustedtotakeintoaccountpredictedlevelsfordifferenttypesofoffender

•Introducefurtherrequirementsensuringthatotheragencies–includingyouthoffending teamsandpoliceunits–receivesystematicfeedbackanddataontheeffectivenessoftheir interventions

•Allowyouthcourtstorefercriminalcasestothefamilycourt(focusingonchildprotection) wherethereisaconcernforthewelfareofthedefendant

•Introducenewtrainingrequirementstoensurethatjudgesandadvocatesareproperlytrained inworkingwithchildrenandyoungpeople

•Reviewthepay,conditionsandprofessionalstatusofyouthcourtworkerstoensurethat workingintheyouthcourtisnotviewedasalow-statusalternativetoworkinginadultcourts

•Reviewsentencingguidelinestostrengthencommunitysentences,includingexaminingthe introductionofwork-focusedcommunitysentences,withafocusonprovidingyoungpeople withstructure,improvedskillsandincreasedselfesteem

•PilotDanish-style‘Spearhead’projectsinEnglandandWales,requiringoffenderstoengagein constructive,paidworkexperienceandcatch-upclasses.

45

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Annex1:Deliberativeworkshopmethodology Deliberativetechniquesbringtogetherabroadlydemographicallyrepresentativesampleofthe populationincludinggroupsABC1C2DE(seenextpagefordefinitions).Theyareheldoveralonger periodthanfocusgroupsinordertoenablepeopletodeveloptheiropinionsastheyarepresented withdifferentmaterialsorarguments.Thisshowswhetherandhowviewschange,andwhat argumentsandinformationhavemostimpact.Italsoprovidesaforuminwhichparticipantscan challengeeachotheraspeoplewithdifferentbackgroundsandviewsdebateatopictogether. Forthisstudyeachoftheworkshopswasthreehourslongandwasdesignedfor12participants.The formatoftheworkshopcombinedgroupdiscussionsonyouthcrimeandarangeofexercises, exposingparticipantstodifferentideasandinformationonthetopic(seeAnnex2). Participantswereaskedtocompleteanindividualsurveyatthebeginningandendoftheworkshopto seeiftheirviewshadchangedduringtheworkshop.

Recruitment Eachworkshopwasrecruitedusingmarketresearchrecruiters.Theparticipantswereselectedtobe roughlyrepresentativeoftheirlocalareaintermsofgender,age,ethnicityandsocio-economic background. Thereisresearchevidencethatsupportstheviewthatdeliberationtendstoreduceinternaldiversity andleadtomoreextremeviews(Schkadeetal 2006).Therefore,weaimedtoavoidrecruiting participantswhowouldhavestrongviewsonthetopicbynotrecruitingpeoplewhohaddirectlinks toit.Thismeantavoidingyoungpeopleundertheageof25,orpeopleworkinginsomecapacitywith youngpeople. Threeworkshopswerecarriedout,inLondon,NorwichandBirmingham.Becauseofthesmallnumber ofworkshopsundertakenlocationwasnotakeyfactorinthesampling. Thedatesoftheworkshopswere10June(London),11June(Norwich)and12June(Birmingham), 2008.InBirminghamandLondonparticipantswerepaid£60toattendandinNorwich£50.

Participants’demographiccharacteristics Participants:London Thegroupconsistedof:

• Sixfemalesandfivemales(onemalewasunabletoattend) • Socialclassifications:2B,3C1,4C2,1D,2E • Agerangefrom28to65 Participants:Norwich Thegroupconsistedof:

• Sixmalesandsixfemales • Socialclassifications:2B,2C1,3C2,3D,2E • Agerangefrom25to67 Participants:Birmingham Thegroupconsistedof:

• Sixmalesandsixfemales(onefemalewasunabletoattend) • Socialclassifications:3B,2C1,3C2,2D,2E • Agerangefrom25to67.

46

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Socialclasses Socialgrade

Socialstatus

Occupation

A

Uppermiddleclass

Highermanagerial,administrativeorprofessional

B

Middleclass

Intermediatemanagerial,administrativeor professional

C1

Lowermiddleclass

Supervisoryorclerical,juniormanagerial, administrativeorprofessional

C2

Skilledworkingclass

Skilledmanualworkers

D

Workingclass

Semiandunskilledmanualworkers

E

Lowestlevelofsubsistence

Statepensionersorwidows(nootherearner), casualorlowestgradeworkers

47

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Annex2:Deliberativeworkshopsdiscussionguide 6:30pm Refreshmentsandfood

6:35pm Welcomeparticipantsandexplaintheproject: • Introduceeachmember–weworkforaresearchcompany • Weareheretofindoutpeople’sviewsaboutyouthcrime. • Theworkshopswillinvolvegoingthroughdifferentinformationandfacts.Therewillbeamixof discussionasafullgroupanddiscussioninsmallergroupsaswellasindividualwork. Beforewestart • Weareneutral–notheretoinfluenceyourviewsbuttofindoutwhatyourviewsare. • Wearenotexpectingpeopletobeexperts–we’renottryingtocatchpeopleoutortesttheir knowledge. • Therearenorightorwronganswers.Wearenotexpertsourselvesbutjustresearchersfindingout people’sviewsonthistopic. • Thismaterialcanbequitetechnicalsoifyougetconfusedpleaseask.Iamnotanexpertinthis fieldbutwilltrytoclarifyanyquestions. • Wealsodonotwantpeopletosaythingsbecausetheythinktheyshould–wewantpeopletobe honestandcomfortabledisagreeingwitheachother–thisisasafeenvironmenttodothat,we won’tgetpersonal. • Allyourviewsreallymattertous.Pleaserespecteachother’sview–evenifyoudisagree. • Pleaseturnoffyourmobile. • Timing–wewillfinishontime!WehavealottogetthroughsoImayhavetohurryyouattimes, butIamnotbeingrude. • Youcanbesureyourviewsandcommentswillbekeptcompletelyanonymousinfinalsurvey. • Xxxxwillbetakingnotesandwewouldlikepermissiontorecord. • Wemaywanderaroundtolisteninbutpleaseignoreusandcarryonyourdiscussion.

6:40pm Warm-up,icebreakersandintroductions Participantsshouldspendoneortwominutestalkingtothepersonnexttothembeforeintroducing eachothertothefullroom.

6:50pm Questionnaire Participantsindividuallycompleteasurveyonyouthcrime. BeforewegetintoanydiscussionI’mgoingtoaskyoualltospendfiveminutescompletingasurvey individually–it’simportantthatwecaptureyourindividualviewsonsomeofthethingswearegoing tobetalkingabout.Pleasebecompletelyhonest–wewilltreatthisinformationconfidentially.

7:00pm Groupdiscussiontogaugehowmuchpeoplealreadyknowaboutyouthcrimeandwhat views,experienceorattitudestheyhaveofit.

48

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

I’dliketostartbygettingasenseofwhatpeoplethinkaboutyoungpeople:

• Whatcomesintoyourheadwhenyouheartheterm‘youth’(anywordsorphrases)? • Whatagedoyouthinkyoungpeoplebecomefullyindependentdevelopedadults?Whendo youngpeoplebecomeresponsiblefortheiractions?Why? I’dliketogetasenseofwhatpeoplethinkaboutyouthcrime:

• Whatcomesintoyourheadwhenyouheartheterm‘youthcrime’(anywordsorphrases)? • Arethereparticularaspectsofyouthcrimethatconcernyoumost? • Isyouthcrimegettingbetterorworse?(probe–isitabigorsmallproblem?) Facilitatortoprovideadefinitionofyouthcrimeandexplorereactions: Youthcrimeconsistsofcriminaloffencescarriedoutbyayoungperson.Underthelawthisincludes youngpeoplefromage10to18. Criminaloffencesincludethingslikegraffiti,assault,theftanddealingdrugs. Anti-socialbehaviour(ASB)includesavarietyofbehaviourcoveringawholecomplexofselfishand unacceptableactivitythatcanblightthequalityofcommunitylife. Examplesinclude:

• Nuisanceneighbours • Rowdyandnuisancebehaviour • Yobbishbehaviourandintimidatinggroupstakingoverpublicspaces. Facilitatortoreadoutdefinitionandask:

• Doesthismakesense? • Aretherequestionsthattheinformationraises/thatyouwanttoask? Wearenowgoingtoexplorewhatyouknowabouttheyouthjusticesystem

• Doyouknowtheminimumageayoungpersoncanbechargedforacrime/prosecuted?(probe– Whydoyousaythis?Howdoyouknow?)

• Atwhatagedoesayoungoffenderbecomeadultinlaw?(probe–Whydoyousaythis?Howdo youknow?)

• Doyouknowhowyouthcrimeiscurrentlytackled?Whatmakesyousaythis? • Howareyouthoffenderscurrentlytreatedbythelaw?(probe–Whydoyousaythis?Howdo youknow?) Facilitatortoprovideadefinitionofyouthjusticesystemandexploreparticipants’reactions Youthjusticeissociety’ssystemfordealingwithyoungpeoplewhobreakthelaw.Theyouthjustice systemhasdifferentcourts(calledyouthcourts)where,forexample,thereisnopublicormedia access.Theyouthjusticesystemalsohasadifferentrangeofsentencesforyouthoffendersthattake intoaccount,tosomeextent,thefactthatchildrenandyoungpeoplearestilldevelopingandfocus ontacklingthecausesoftheiroffending.Under-18shaveseparateprisonsfromadults. Undertheageof10childrencannotbeprosecutedforacrime. Aftertheir18thbirthdayyoungpeoplearetreatedasadultsintheadultcourt(Magistrates’Courtor CrownCourt–withajury).Theyaregivenfewerchancestoimprovetheirbehaviourandhavetougher punishmentsthatdonotaimtotacklethecausesoftheirbehaviour.

49

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Theyouthjusticesystemincludesavarietyofprocessesincluding:

• Publicinformationcampaignse.g.onknifecrime • Policepatrols,stopandsearchandarrest • Anti-socialbehaviourorders(ASBOs)anddealingwiththemwhentheyarebroken • Cautionsandprosecutionsofyoungpeople • Hearingsinthecriminalyouthcourt • Communitysentencese.g.curfeworders(tags),supervisionandreparation(‘payback’) • Custodialsentences(i.e.youthprison) Facilitatortoreadoutdefinitionandask:

• Doesthismakesense? • Prompt:whatarethestrengths/weaknessesofthesystem? 7:25pmDefiningyouthcrime Wewouldliketofindoutyourviewsonarangeofcriminaloffences. Sortingcardsexercise: Dividegroupintothreegroupsoffourandprovidethemwithcards(eachcardwilloutlineadifferent offence).Askpeopletodiscusseachoffenceandclassifyunderthreecategories:minorcrime/antisocialbehaviour,medium/seriousandsevere.Whendecidingonhowtoclassifyeachoffence participantsmustthinkaboutitscauses:whyandwhathasledyoungpeopletocommitthese offences? Minorcrime/anti-socialbehaviour:

• Graffitionschoolwalls • Verbalharassment • All-nightpartydisturbingneighbours • Personalpossessionofcannabis • Peter(13yearsold)hadanargumentathomewithhisfostermother.Afterleavinghishouseina ragehekickedandbrokeapublicdustbin

• Ali(15)gotintoafightafterschoolwithanotherboy,causinganosebleed. Medium/serious:

• JuliestoleDVDsfromasupermarket.Whenshewasarrestedshestruggledandkickedapolice officer

•Breakingcarlights •Theftofabicycle •Possessionofaknife •Agroupofboyspushedaroundayoungerboyonhiswayhomefromschool.Oneoftheboys, Leon,stolehisbikeandrodeoffwithit Veryserious/severe:

•Armedrobbery •A19-year-oldyoungmanrapeda16-year-oldyoungwomanafteraparty

50

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

•Agroupofteenagersstubbedateenagerwithbrokenglassduringafight.Thevictimdied. Threegroupstofeedbackhowtheyhavesortedcardsandreasonsfortheirgrouping. Groupdiscussion: Doyouthinkthereshouldbedifferentresponsestodifferentoffences(probe– shouldallbetackledinthesameway?Orshouldtherebeasofterandharderapproachaccordingto offences?Why?)

7:45pm Responsibility:Thespiderofyouthcrime Intheprevioussectionwediscussedwhatconstitutesyouthcrimeandtheyouthjusticesystem.We nowwanttoexploreyourviewsonwhoandwhatisresponsibleforcausingyouthcrime. Divideparticipantsintothreegroupsoffourparticipantstodiscussanddrawaspiderdiagramwith youthcrimeinthecentre.Eachlegofthespiderofyouthcrimeshouldrepresentsomeoneor somethingthatisfully/partlyresponsibleforyouthcrimeintheUK.Thinkaboutthisinrelationtothe offenceswediscussedinprevioussection. Groupstofeedbackexplainingdifferentlegsoftheirspiderdiagram. Facilitatorshouldprobeonthefollowingelements:

•Whydoyouthinkyouthcrimehappens?(probe–whatismakingyoungpeoplemoreproneto committingcrimes?Why?)

•Whoisresponsibleforyouthcrime?(probe–areyoungpeopleresponsible?Howresponsibleare parents?Communities?Societiesasawhole?)

•Whoisresponsiblefortacklingyouthcrime?(Isitpolice/courtoranyoneelse?Shoulditbethe responsibilityofparents?Communities?Societyasawhole?)

8:05pm 5minutebreakforrefreshments

8:10pm Tacklingyouthcrime I’dliketofindoutpeople’sviewsonwhatthemainprioritiesfortacklingyouthcrimeshouldbe. Divideparticipantsinthreegroupsoffour.Askparticipantstodiscusseachofthestatementslisted belowfortacklingyouthcrime.Usingthescaleprovided,participantsshoulddecideintheirpairs whethertheyagreeordisagreewitheachelementandexplainreasons.

•Thelawisthelaw.Allyoungpeopleovertheageof10whobreakthelawshouldgothroughthe criminalsystemofpoliceandcourts.Thisshouldbethecaseevenforminorcrimes. Placeinscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree)

•Thecriminalsystemofpoliceandcourtsshouldonlybeusedasalastresortforseriouscrimes. Insteadthecommunity(e.g.families,neighbours,churches,schools,youthservices)shouldbe involvedinholdingoffenderstoaccount. Placeinscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree)

•Thecriminalsystemofpoliceandcourtsshouldnotbeusedforchildren/youngpeopleuntilthey turn16(currently10).Children’sbehaviouriscausedbysocialproblemssoweshouldimprove children’swelfareratherthanpunishthem. Placeinscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree)

•Ifayoungpersoncommitsanti-socialbehaviourweshouldforcethemtomakeamendstothe victimsandcommunityandtacklethecausesoftheirbehaviour(forexamplebyconsideringtheir home/schoollife).Thisshouldbedoneoutsidethecriminaljusticesystemasfaraspossible. Placeinscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree)

51

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

•Youngpeoplearestilldevelopingupto21andcanstill‘changeforthebetter’giventheright tools,sonon-severeoffendersshouldbedealtwithoutsidethecriminalpunishmentsystem. Placeinscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree)

•Seriousyoungoffendersshouldbedealtwithincourtwithcustodialsentences(prison)forthose whoareadangertosociety. Placeinscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree)

•Ifyoungpeoplegothroughcriminalsystemfromtooyounganage(i.e.10yearsold),evenfor minorcrimes,thenthiswilllabelthemascriminalsmakingthemmorelikelytore-offendlaterin theirlife. Placeinscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree) Iftimeallows,facilitatortotestreactionsto:

•Childrenaretooyoungtobeheldresponsiblefortheiractions.Weshouldrisecriminalageto16. Placeinscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree)

•Weshouldbetoughonallcrimes,whethertheyare‘minor’orserious,evenifthelevelsofyoung peoplebeingarrestedandenteringthecriminaljusticesystemforminoroffencesgoesup. Placeinscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree)

•Thecriminalsystemofpoliceandcourtsisexpensivesoitshouldbeusedasalastresort. Placeinscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree)

•Weshouldtacklecrimebeforeithappens. Placeinscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree)

•Ifayoungpersoncommitsanti-socialbehaviourweshouldissuethemwithananti-social behaviourorder.Iftheycontinuebehavinganti-sociallytheyshouldbearrestedandsentto court. Placeinscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree)

•Courtsshoulddealouttoughprisonsentencesforyouthcriminalstomakeanexampleand satisfythevictim. Placeinscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree) Groupstofeedbacktothewholegroup:discussiononeachelementandreasonwhypeopleagreeor disagreewiththem.

8:45pm Testinganewapproachtoyouthcrime Fortherestoftheeveningwearegoingtodiscussthreecasestudiesofyouthcrimeandthreeoptions fortacklingthem. Divideparticipantsinthreegroupsoffour.Participantsshouldreadanddiscussthreecasestudiesand optionsprovided.Theyneedtodecidewhichoptiontheywouldtakeandthereasonswhy.Groupsto feedback. Casestudy1 Jamesis17yearsoldandcomesfromSouthLondon.Jamesdroppedoutofschoolayearagoand hasbeenmovingbetweenfoster/carehomessincehewas13.Hehasfalleninwithabadcrowdand startedtakingharddrugs.Hehaspreviousconvictionsforvariousoffencesincludinggraffiti, vandalismandjoyriding. Hehasjustbeenarrestedforrobbing(takingapproximately£100)andassaultinganewsagent.The victimhadtogotohospital.

52

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

OptionA Jamesgetssenttoayouthcriminalcourtandgetsasix-monthintensivesupervisionorder.Hehasto attendaschemeeveryday,whereheworksintensivelyoneducationandtraining,andinterventions totacklehisbehaviourandimprovehisinterpersonalskills,suchasangermanagement,literacyskills, workexperienceaswellasdrugrehab.Healsohasto‘payback’forhiscrimebyhavingamediated meetingwiththevictim(orhisrepresentative)anddoingsomevoluntarywork.Jamesalsoreceives supporttofindhousingandwork. OptionB Jamesgetssenttoayouthcriminalcourtandgetsacustodialsentence(youthprison)forsixmonths. Whileheistherehehastoundertakemanualwork.Under‘honestsentencing’ruleshewillhaveto serveatleastthefullterm,andlongerifhedoesnotbehaveinprison. OptionC James’scaseisheardbyayouthcriminalcourt.Onhearingabouthissocialproblems,Jamesisgiven aRehabilitationOrder.Thisfocusesonaddressingthecausesofhisoffending.Hehastomeetwith thelocalyouthoffendingteamweeklytotacklehisbehaviourandimprovehisinterpersonalskills,for exampleangermanagementandliteracyskills.Heisprovidedwithdrugrehabinthecommunity. Groupdiscussion:Anyquestions?Whichapproachdoyouthinkwouldworkbest?Why? Casestudy2 Maryis18yearsoldandcomesfromWales.Maryisastudentatalocalvocationaltrainingcollege, wheresheisstudyingforNVQs(GCSElevel).Shehastocareforhersicksinglemumandthree youngerbrothersandsisters.Shehasneverbeenconvictedbefore,butshehadanASBOwhenshe wasyounger. MaryandherfriendsintimidatedDaniel(a13-year-oldschoolboyfromthesamearea)whilehewasin thestreetlisteningtohisMP3player.Marysnatchedtheplayerandwalkedaway.WhenDaniel followedthemtogettheplayerbackhewaspushedandverballyabusedandthreatenedbyMaryand herfriends. OptionA Becauseshedoesnothaveahistoryofoffending,Maryreceivesapolicecautionforheroffence.Her caseisassessedbyasocialworker.Becauseoftheproblemsinherhomelife,Maryisprovidedwithan extrasupportpackageprovidedbysocialservicesincludinghousingsupport,respitecareand counsellingforstress. OptionB Mary’soffenceisheardbyacommunitypanel(formedbymembersofherlocalcommunity,the victim’srepresentativeandayouthworker).Maryhasto‘payback’byreturningorreplacingtheMP3 player,apologisingtothevictimandhisfamilyandvolunteeringatachildcarecentre.Shealsohasto addressthecausesofoffendingbyattendingconsequentialthinking,angermanagementandpeer pressuresessionswithayouthworkerfromalocalcharity. OptionC Assheislegallyanadult,Marygetsarrestedandsenttoanadultcriminalcourt.Becauseofahigh numberofrobberiesinthearea,courtshavebeentoldtosendamessageonviolentcrime.Marygets a‘short,sharpshock’–aneight-week‘bootcamp’sentencerunbyex-soldiers–toteachherand othersalesson. Groupdiscussion:Anyquestions?Whichapproachdoyouthinkwouldworkbest?Why?

53

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Casestudy3 Johnis12yearsoldandcomesfromNewcastle.Hehasnopreviousconvictions.Hehasrecentlyhad hisbicyclestolen. JohnliveswithmumJane,asingleparent,andthreebrothersinatwo-bedroomflatonanestate.He hasbeenmisbehavinginschool,bullyingclassmatesandnotdoinghomework.Johnhasstarted hangingaroundwithagroupofolderboys.Localresidentsfindthegroupintimidatingandhave madecomplaintsaboutgraffitiandvandalismontheestate,forwhichthegrouphavebeenwarned. Oneeveninginthesummerholidaystheygotdrunkandvandalisedaschooloutbuilding. OptionA Johngetsissuedananti-socialbehaviourorder(ASBO).Hispictureispublishedinthelocal newspapersothatmembersofthepubliccanidentifyhimifhecontinuestohangoutonthestreets. Johnalsogetsexpelledfromschooltosetaclearexampleofzero-tolerancetofellowpupils.Johnis stilloutonthestreetsintheevenings.Heisreportedbyalocalresidentforhangingoutwiththe samegroupofboys,someofwhomaredrinking.HeisarrestedforbreakinghisASBOandtakento court. OptionB John’sbehaviourisacceptedbecauseheisnotdeemedtobebreakinganylaws.Beingunder16, Johnisnotconsideredtoberesponsibleforhisactions.Heisassessedbyawelfareteaminasimilar waytoOption2,buthedoesnothavetodorepairstoschoolpropertyasitisfeltthiswouldbe stigmatisinghimforsomethingthatisnothisfault. OptionC Followinghisongoingbehaviouralissues,John’sschooldecidestotalktoJohn’sparents.Theschool, aspartofthelocalyouthbehaviourimprovementpartnership,refersJohn’scasetobeassessedbya rapidreferralteam.TheteamdecidestohelptackletheproblemsinJohn’slifethatmaybe contributingtohispoorbehaviour,by:

• EnrollingJohnandhisbrothersinarangeofleisureandcommunityactivities. • ‘Parentingsupportclasses’andsupportwithhousingareofferedforJohn’smum. • Johnisdiagnosedwithdyslexiaandcommunicationproblemsandisprovidedextrasupportand therapy.

• John’sbehaviourisdiscussedwithhisheadteacherandparentsandheagreestodosomerepairs totheschoolproperty. Groupdiscussion:Anyquestions?Whichapproachdoyouthinkwouldworkbest?Why? Finally:groupdiscussioncomparingthreecasestudies:whatdopeoplethinkaboutthethreecase studies?Wereyoumoresympathetictowardsoneinparticular?Howdothecasestudiescompare againsteachother?Didyoufeelthateachcasestudywastackledfairlyincomparisonwiththeother casestudies?

9:05pm Quickquestionnaire Wewouldliketoaskyoutodothequestionnairethatyoudidatthestartagaintoseeifyourviews havechangedfollowingthisworkshop.

9:15pm Wrapup Finaldiscussiononthetopic.Thisisyourchancetosumupwhatyouthink.You’veheardalotof differentthingsaboutyouthcrimeandtheyouthjusticesystem.

54

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

• Who/whatisresponsibleforcausingyouthcrime? • Whoshouldberesponsiblefortacklingyouthcrime(probe–societyasawhole?Orindividual communities?Orjustindividuals?)

• Whatkindofapproachshouldweusetotackleoffenders?(probe–shouldtheapproachvary accordingtothegravityofoffences?How?)

• Shouldcommunitiesandagencies(police)worktogethertohelpyoungpeopleawayfrom re-offending?

• Howinvolvedshouldthecriminalsystemofpoliceandcourtsbeintacklingminor/medium/very seriousoffences?(probe–shouldweusethecriminalsystemofpoliceandcourtsasalastresort forseriouscrime?) Facilitatorexplainswhathappensnextwiththeproject(We’regoingtodoafewmoresimilargroups andwriteareportonyouthcrime),thanksparticipantsandasksiftheyhaveanyquestionsforthe teamorifanyonewantsacopyofthereporttoleavedetails.Giveoutincentives.

9:30pm Close

Groupdiscussionofcasestudies-results Casestudy1 Casestudy1presentedJames,whois17andhaspreviousconvictions.Jameshaslivedina numberofcarehomessincehewas13.Hehasjustbeenarrestedforstealingover£100and hurtingsomeoneintheact. Thiscasestudyengenderedtheleastsympathyfromparticipants,especiallyduetofactthatthe offenderhadpreviousconvictionsandwasalmostanadultinage.Participantsalsoconsidered thatitwasaseriousoffencebecausehehadphysicallyharmedthevictim. ‘Heisapastoffender….wearebeyondsoftly,softly….youdon’tneedto knowhowtoreadtoknowthatyoudon’tsteal.’(Male,London) ‘Heis17andhashurtsomebody…theyhavetodosomethingandbehard aboutit.’(Female,London) Participantsresentedthatthistypeofoffenderwouldgethelpwithhousingandwork,aswas suggestedinthe‘welfarist’option. ‘Wedon’tseethatit’sfairthatheshouldbesuppliedwithhousingand workwhenotherpeopledon’tgetit.’(Female,Norwich) However,someparticipantswerestillmoreinclinedtouseatiered/diversionaryapproachbecause theylikedthecombinationof‘payingback’andhelpingtheoffender. ‘Youdon’tknowhispast…hehasbeenincarehomes…he’sgotbadhangups…’(Female,London) ‘Itsoundslikeanicebalanceofthingshehastodo–hehastopayback anddothingsthatmayhelphimwithhislife.’(Male,London) ‘Ifyouputhiminto[thetieredanddiversionaryapproach]atleasthehas thechanceforaneducation.Theyhavetobegivenanotherchancebefore youbangthemupwithothercriminals.’(Female,Norwich)

55

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Casestudy2 Casestudy2presentedMary,whois18andhasnopreviousconvictions.Maryisastudentandcares forhersicksinglemotherandthreeyoungerbrothersandsisters.Shehasjustbeenarrestedfor verballyandphysicallyintimidatingayoungerboywhilesnatchinghisMP3player. Thiscasestudyelicitedthemostsympathyfromparticipants.Mary’scircumstances,especiallyat home,madeparticipantsmoreunderstandingofwhyshehadcommittedthisoffence.Theyfeltthat shehadadifficultsituationathomeandneededsupport.Mostparticipantsoptedforthetieredand diversionaryapproachforthiscasestudy.TheydidnotwantMarytoloseherplaceatcollegeor jeopardiseherkeyroleasacarerathome. ‘Shehasacaringside–shelooksafterherfamily.’(Male,London) ‘Sheneedshelp…sheisunderincrediblestress.’(Female,London) ‘Welikedtheideaof‘payback’;wethoughtitwasamoreconstructive mechanismgivenherbackground.’(Male,Birmingham) ParticipantsweresympathetictowardsthefactthatMaryhadnopreviousconvictions.Significantly, participantsdidnotrecommendamorepunitiveapproachonthebasisthatat18shewaslegallyan adult. ‘Ithinkitisablipbecauseit’safirstoffence.’(Male,Norwich) ‘Itshouldbesaidtoherthatifshedidre-offendshewouldn’tbeshownthe samesympathy.’(Female,Birmingham) Casestudy3 Casestudy3tellsthestoryofJohn,a13-year-oldschoolboywithnopreviousconvictions.Johnlives withhismother,asingleparent,andhasbeenmisbehavingatschool.Hehasbeencommittinga numberofanti-socialbehaviourswithhisfriendsforawhile.Hehasjustvandalisedaschool outbuilding. Thiscasestudywasgivensympathyfromparticipants.Mostofthemoptedforatieredand diversionaryapproach.TheytookintoaccountJohn’syoungage,thefactthathehadnoprevious convictionsandthatthiswasnotaseriousoffence. ‘Youcan’tgiveuponakidat13.’(Female,London) ‘I’dleantowardsthe[tieredanddiversionaryapproach]–atthatageitmight sorthisproblemsout.’(Male,Norwich) ‘Itisamazingthenumberofchildrenwiththeseproblemsthatslipthrough thenet–heneedsunderstanding.’(Female,Birmingham)

56

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Annex3:Breakdownofparticipants London Gender Female Female Female Female Female Female Male Male Male Male Male Male

Age 55 55 34 40 46 65 58 60 32 45 28 45

Socialclass B B C2 E C1 C1 C2 C2 C1 D E C2

Occupation Housewife PASec Musician Nonworking PASec Retired Carsales Retired Officeclerk Nonworking Roofer Painter/decorator

Age 25 25 25 37 41 43 56 54 46 55 67 65

Socialclass E C2 B C1 D E B C2 C1 D C2 D

Occupation Housewife Carpenter Accountant Pharmacyassistant Postman Housewife Retiredengineer Boatbuilder Engineer Factoryhand Retiredheatingengineer Vandriver

Age 25 35 52 58 63 67 34 42 52 57 65 67

Socialclass E C1 D C2 E C2 B B C1 D B C2

Occupation Unemployed Housewife Kitchenassistant Housewife Retired Retired Buyer Engineer Semi-retiredconsultant Assembler Retired Retired

Norwich Gender Female Male Male Female Male Female Male Female Female Male Female Male

Birmingham Gender Female Female Female Female Female Female Male Male Male Male Male Male

57

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

Annex4.Workshopparticipants’reactionstocertainelementsof ippr’sproposedapproachestoyouthjustice Theelementsthatweremorefavouredbyparticipantsincluded:

• Ifayoungpersoncommitsanti-socialbehaviourweshouldforcethemtomakeamendstothe victimsandcommunityandtacklethecausesoftheirbehaviour(forexample,byconsideringtheir home/schoollife).Thisshouldbedoneoutsidethecriminaljusticesystemasfaraspossible.

• Seriousyoungoffendersshouldbedealtwithincourtwithcustodialsentences(prison)forthose whoareadangertosociety. Theelementsthatwerelessfavouredbyparticipantsincluded:

• Thecriminalsystemofpoliceandcourtsshouldonlybeusedasalastresortforseriouscrimes. Insteadthecommunity(forexample,families,neighbours,churches,schools,youthservices) shouldbeinvolvedinholdingoffenderstoaccount.

• Youngpeoplearestilldevelopingupto21andcanstill‘changeforthebetter’giventheright tools,sonon-severeoffendersshouldbedealtwithoutsidethecriminalpunishmentsystem.

• Ifyoungpeoplegothroughthecriminalsystemfromtooyounganage(10yearsold),evenfor minorcrimes,thenthiswilllabelthemascriminalsmakingthemmorelikelytore-offendlaterin theirlife. Theelementsthathadamixedresponsefromparticipantsincluded:

• Thecriminalsystemofpoliceandcourtsshouldnotbeusedforchildren/youngpeopleuntilthey turn16(currentlytheageis10).Children’sbehaviouriscausedbysocialproblemssoweshould improvechildren’swelfareratherthanpunishthem.

• Thelawisthelaw.Allyoungpeopleovertheageof10whobreakthelawshouldgothroughthe criminalsystemofpoliceandcourts.Thisshouldbethecaseevenforminorcrimes.

58

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

References AllenR(2004)‘Whatworksinchangingpublicattitudes:LessonsfromRethinkingCrimeand Punishment’JournalforCrime,ConflictandtheMedia 1(3)55-67 AllenR(2006)FromPunishmenttoProblem-Solving:Anewapproachtochildrenintrouble London: CentreforCrimeandJusticeStudies AllenRandSternV(eds.)(2007)JusticeReinvestment–Anewapproachtocrimeandjustice London:InternationalCentreforPrisonStudies AuditCommission(2004)YouthJustice–2004London:AuditCommission BondH(2000)‘Justiceinthedock’CommunityCare 12May BottomsAandDignanJ(2004)‘YouthjusticeinGreatBritain’,CrimeandJustice–Areviewof researchVol.31. BrooksR(ed.)(2007)PublicServicesattheCrossroads London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch, availableat:www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=562 BurnhamA(2007)‘TheGovernment’srelationshipwithpublicservicesdelivery’:PSAReformSpeech attheSchoolofSocialSciencesandPublicPolicy,KingsCollegeLondon,18July CaseyL(2008)EngagingCommunitiesinFightingCrime London:CabinetOffice,availableat: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/~/media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/cc_full_ report%20pdf.ashx CommissiononSocialJustice(1994) SocialJustice:ReportoftheCommissiononSocialJustice London:Vintage/ippr CriminalJusticeInspectionNorthernIreland(2008)YouthConferenceService Belfast:CJINI CriminalJusticeSystemforEnglandandWales(2008)‘BringingMoreOffencestoJustice’,webpage, availableat:http://lcjb.cjsonline.gov.uk/ncjb/perfStats/obtj.html CJS(2002)NarrowingtheJusticeGap London:CJS,availableat: www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/docs/justicegap.pdf DepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies(DSCF)(2007)TheChildren’sPlan:BuildingBrighter Futures London:TSO DepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies(DSCF)(2005)YouthMattersGreenPaper London: DSCF DixonM,ReedH,RogersBandStoneL(2006)CrimeShare:Theunequalimpactofcrime London: InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch,availableat: www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=454 DuncanSmithI(2007)Beingtoughonthecausesofcrime:Tacklingfamilybreakdowntoprevent youthcrimeLondon:TheSocialJusticePolicyGroup,CentreforSocialJustice EastRenfrewshireCouncil(2008)AModelforReducingYouthCrime, webnewsstory,availableat: www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk/newspage?callback=4&id=33028 FarringtonD(1977)‘Theeffectsofpubliclabelling’BritishJournalofCriminology, vol17:122-35 FlanaganR(2008)TheReviewofPolicing:Finalreport London:HomeOffice GarlandD(2001)TheCultureofControl:Crimeandsocialdisorderincontemporarysociety Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress HallP(1993)‘PolicyParadigms,SocialLearning,andtheState:TheCaseofEconomicPolicymakingin Britain’ComparativePolitics,Vol.25,No.3

59

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

HarringtonW(2007)Briefing-workwithyoungpeopletopreventandaddressyouthcrimeandanti socialbehaviourinEastRenfrewshire Unpublished HillA(2006)‘Judgeadmits:Britain’syouthcourts“inchaos”’TheObserver,22October HMGovernment(2003)EveryChildMatters London:HMSO,availableat: www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/_files/EBE7EEAC90382663E0D5BBF24C99A7AC.pdf HMGovernment(2006)RespectActionPlan,London:COI,availableat: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/respect-action-plan?view=Binary HMGovernment(2008)YouthCrimeActionPlanLondon:COI HomeOffice(1998)YouthJustice:Thestatutoryprincipalaimofpreventingoffendingbychildrenand youngpeopleLondon:HomeOffice HomeOffice(2007a)HomeOfficeTargetsAutumnPerformanceReportLondon:HomeOffice HomeOffice(2007b)BritishCrimeSurvey2006/07-HomeOfficeStatisticalBulletin11/07,London: HomeOffice HoughMandRobertsJ(1999)‘SentencingtrendsinBritain:Publicknowledgeandpublicopinion’, PunishmentandSociety Vol.1,No.1 HoughMandRobertsJV(2004)Youthcrimeandyouthjustice:PublicopinioninEnglandandWales Bristol:PolicyPress HurleyN,DorransS,OrrDandEavesJ(2008)EvaluationofSchool,SocialWork,Policeand Community(SSPC)ProjectEdinburgh:BlakeStevenson KempV,SorsbyA,LiddleMandMerringtonS(2002)Assessingresponsestoyouthoffendingin NorthamptonshireLondon:NACRO LaceyN(2008)ThePrisoners’Dilemma:PoliticalEconomyandPunishmentinContemporary DemocraciesCambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress LevitasR(1998)TheInclusiveSociety:SocialExclusionandNewLabourBasingstoke:Macmillan LewisJ(2002)‘Genderandwelfarestatechange’EuropeanSocietiesVol4,No.4 MagistratesAssociation(2003)AnnualGeneralMeetingsMotionsforDebate,availableat: www.magistrates-association.org.uk/events/agm-motions-for-debate.htm#2003 MargoJandDixonMwithPearceNandReedH(2006)Freedom’sOrphans:RaisingYouthina ChangingWorldLondon:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch,availableat: www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=496 MargoJandStevensA(2008)MakeMeaCriminal:PreventingyouthcrimeLondon:Institutefor PublicPolicyResearch,availableat: www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=587 MedhurstCandCunliffeJ(2007)Re-offendingofjuveniles:Resultsfromthe2005cohort London: MinistryofJusticeandOfficeforNationalStatistics MitchellHandBabbP(2007)CrimesDetectedinEnglandandWales2006/07 London:HomeOffice andOfficeforNationalStatistics NewmanNwithLewisM(2007) CommunicatingAsylumLondon:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch, unpublished PearceN(2007)‘Crimeandpunishment:Anewagenda’inPearceNandMargoJ(eds)Politicsfora NewGeneration:Theprogressivemoment Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan PhillipsAandChamberlainV(2006)MORIFive-YearReport:Ananalysisofyouthsurveydata London: YouthJusticeBoard

60

ippr|TowardsaPopular,PreventativeYouthJusticeSystem

PriorDandParisA(2005)PreventingChildren’sInvolvementinCrimeandAnti-SocialBehaviour:A literaturereview London:DepartmentforEducationandSkills RethinkingCrimeandPunishment(2004)RethinkingCrimeandPunishment:ThereportLondon: RethinkingCrimeandPunishment RogersB(2005)NewDirectionsinCommunityJusticeLondon:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch, availableat:www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=316 SansfaçonDandWelshB(1999)CrimePreventionDigestII:Comparativeanalysisofsuccessful communitysafetyQuebec:InternationalCentreforPreventionofCrime SchkadeD,SusteinCR,HatieR(2006)‘Whathappenedondeliberationday?’Workingpaper06-19, July.AEI-BrookingsJointCenterforRegulatoryStudies ShermanLandStrangH(2007)RestorativeJustice:TheevidenceLondon:TheSmithInstitute SolomonEandGarsideR(2008)TenyearsofLabour’syouthjusticereforms:anindependentaudit London:CentreforCrimeandJusticeStudies SMARTCompany,The(2007)TheRoleofBusinessinSocialChange:AreviewoftheYoungOffender ProgrammeledbyNationalGrid London:TheSmithInstitute,availableat:www.smithinstitute.org.uk/pdfs/the-role-of-business-review-of-young-offender-prog.pdf SmithDJ(2006)SocialInclusionandEarlyDesistancefromCrime Edinburgh:CentreforLawand Society,TheUniversityofEdinburgh WallerI(2006)LessLaw,MoreOrder:ThetruthaboutreducingcrimeWestport:Praeger WildingB(2008)‘WewillneverhaveaneffectiveCriminalJusticeSystemuntilwefocusonstopping problemandcriminalbehaviour’LecturetoCentreforCrimeandJusticeStudies Wilson,SharpCandPattersonA(2006)YoungPeopleandCrime:FindingsfromtheOffending,Crime andJusticeSurveyLondon:HomeOffice YouthJusticeBoard(2007)AnnualReportandAccounts2006-07 London:YouthJusticeBoard