Youth Justice - United Kingdom Parliament - Parliament UK

House of Commons Justice Committee

Youth Justice Seventh Report of Session 2012–13 Volume II Additional written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 19 June 2012

Published on 14 March 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

The Justice Committee The Justice Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Ministry of Justice and its associated public bodies (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding the work of the Scotland and Wales Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland); and administration and expenditure of the Attorney General's Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers).

Current membership Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Chair) Steve Brine (Conservative, Winchester) Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham) Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North) Nick de Bois (Conservative, Enfield North) Gareth Johnson (Conservative, Dartford) Rt Hon Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd) Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough) Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston) Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Bolton South East) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Mike Weatherley (Conservative, Hove) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament: Mr Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon); Christopher Evans (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn); Mrs Helen Grant (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald); Ben Gummer (Conservative, Ipswich); Mrs Siân C James (Labour, Swansea East); Jessica Lee (Conservative, Erewash); Robert Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst); Claire Perry (Conservative, Devizes); Mrs Linda Riordan (Labour/Co-operative, Halifax), Anna Soubry (Conservative, Broxtowe); Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk) and Karl Turner (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East).

Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk

Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/justicecttee. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Nick Walker (Clerk), Sarah Petit (Second Clerk), Gemma Buckland (Senior Committee Specialist), Helen Kinghorn (Committee Legal Specialist), Ana Ferreira (Senior Committee Assistant), Miguel Boo Fraga (Committee Assistant), Holly Knowles (Committee Support Assistant), George Margereson (Sandwich student), and Nick Davies (Committee Media Officer).

Contacts Correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Justice Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 8196 and the email address is [email protected]

List of additional written evidence (published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/justicecttee) 1

Communication Trust

Ev w1

2

Alcohol Concern

Ev w4

3

Professor Brian Littlechild

Ev w5

4

Criminal Bar Association

Ev w10

5

National Council for Voluntary Youth Services and Clinks

Ev w14

6

Local Government Association

Ev w18

7

Developing Initiatives Supporting Communities

Ev w20

8

Big Lottery Fund

Ev w21

9

Youth Offending Service, Reading

Ev w23

10

Catch 22

Ev w25

11

Matthew Fiander

Ev w27

12

Dr Sarah Pearce

Ev w27

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [13-03-2013 14:40] Job: 026308 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026308/026308_w012_michelle_YJIII 26 Sara Pearce.xml

Justice Committee: Evidence Ev w1

Written evidence Written evidence from the Communication Trust Background to The Communication Trust (TCT) The Communication Trust is a coalition organisation bringing together 40 voluntary and community sector organisations with expertise in children’s speech, language and communication. Supported with funding from Department for Education, Youth Justice Board and other funders we work to improve the speech, language and communication skills of children and young people and to ensure that children with speech, language and communication needs are better supported and included. We are delighted to provide a response to the Justice Committee’s inquiry into youth justice. Much of the Trust’s projects to date involve improving the understanding of the children and young people’s workforce of speech, language and communication needs and promoting relevant resources for practitioners working in Early Years, Primary and Secondary education. However, an increasingly important area of the Trust’s work is targeting those working in the youth justice system, which has within it a disproportionately high percentage of children and young people with unrecognised and un-met communication needs. The Trust has focused this submission on those young offenders who have communication needs and we are pleased that youth justice is being considered by the Justice Committee. This is a crucial issue because research undertaken by Professor Karen Bryan of the University of Surrey has shown that at least 60% of young people in custody have communication needs. In the majority of cases, these young people’s communication difficulties had previously been unidentified and therefore their needs unmet. The House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts also recently published a report which found that current forms of offender assessment do not give sufficient weight to communication needs which can severely impact on the ability of a young offender to engage with or understand the requirements of their sentence plan. Obviously where communication needs exist and remain unsupported this can potentially impact on the effectiveness of restorative justice measures, on efforts to divert young people away from first time offending and on efforts to divert young people from reoffending. Background to Speech, Language and Communication needs Speech language and communication skills are the basis for other key life skills: learning, literacy, positive relationships and regulation of behaviour and emotions.1 Speaking and listening skills underpin pupil outcomes; young people with good communication skills have a wider range of life chances.2 As many as 10% of children in the UK, over one million, have speech, language and communication needs, which are not caused by language neglect, or by having English as an additional language or other external factors. This means that in the average classroom, there are two or three children with such communication difficulties. Of this group, a large cohort—between 5–7% of the child population—have specific language impairment (SLI), meaning that they have difficulties with learning and using language that are not associated with factors such as general learning difficulties, or other conditions, such as cerebral palsy, hearing impairment or autistic spectrum disorders. A child with SLI might be bright, but struggle to understand the language used in the classroom, and thus struggle to attain and achieve. Department for Education annual SEN statistics for 2010 found that speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) is the most common type of primary need for pupils with SEN statements in maintained primary schools, with 26.5% of all statemented children in this age group having SLCN as their primary need.3 In some parts of the UK, those with high unemployment and poor housing, the prevalence rate of SLCN rises. In areas of social deprivation upwards of 50% of children, equivalent to as many as 17% per classroom, are starting school with language delay.4 There is also evidence of a high incidence of communication difficulties (often unidentified) in those who are young offenders,5 looked after children6 and those who have conduct disorder7 as well as other social emotional and behavioural difficulties.8,9 1

2 3 4 5

6 7

8

9

Silva P, Williams S & McGee R (1987): A Longitudinal Study of Children with Developmental Delay at age three years; later intellectual, reading and behaviour problems. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 29, 630–640. Improving Achievement in English Language in Primary and Secondary Schools (2003). HMIE. Department for Education, Special Educational Needs 2010: an analysis, (October 2010). Locke, A, Ginsborg, J and Peers, I (2002). Development and Disadvantage: Implications for Early Years IJLCD Vol 27 No 1. Bryan, K, 2004. Preliminary study of the prevalence of speech and language difficulties in young offenders. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, 391–400. Cross, M. Lost for words (1999). Child and Family Social Work 4(3): 249–57. Gilmour J, Hill B, Place M, Skuse D H (2004). Social communication deficits in conduct disorder: a clinical and community survey Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry. 45(5):967–978. Toppelberg C O, Shapiro T (2000), Language disorders: A 10-year research update review. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 39: 143–152. Snow, P C and Powell, M B (2005). What’s the story? An exploration of narrative language abilities in male juvenile offenders. Psychology, Crime and Law 11(3) 239–253. Bryan K, Freer J, Furlong C Language and communication difficulties in juvenile offenders (2007). International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 42 2.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [13-03-2013 14:40] Job: 026308 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026308/026308_w012_michelle_YJIII 26 Sara Pearce.xml

Ev w2 Justice Committee: Evidence

The Communication Trust’s Work to Date The 2008 Bercow Review identified a lack of awareness in the children’s workforce around the importance of speech language and communication and the significant impact of SLCN on educational attainment, behaviour and mental health. As a result, it recommended that there is a need for the workforce to develop a set of core skills in children’s and young people’s speech, language and communication needs. The Government’s response to the review, the Better Communication Action Plan, set out a range of initiatives to improve services for children with such needs and it recognised the concerns around how the special educational needs of young people in custody are being met. The Trust’s Youth Justice Programme was developed as a direct result. The Communication Trust has been undertaking a programme of work to engage with aspects of the youth justice workforce to increase their knowledge and understanding of communication needs and their confidence and ability to manage young people with communication needs to ensure the best possible outcomes for all involved. Funded by the Department for Education we are delivering outcomes in partnership with a number of colleagues including the Dyslexia-SpLD Trust, Autism Education Trust, Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, Association of Youth Offending Team Managers, Youth Justice Board, Skills for Justice and the University of Surrey. We are also working with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that our work informs emerging policy in the field of young offender support and management. In November 2009 the Trust published Sentence Trouble, a booklet aimed at everyone that works or volunteers in Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), Young Offenders Institutions (YOIs), Secure Children’s Homes (STCs) and Secure Training Centres (STCs). It is intended to help improve understanding and communication with children and young people, particularly those with communication needs. In May 2010 the Trust launched the Sentence Trouble website (www.sentencetrouble.info). The purpose of the website is to enhance and build on the information contained within the booklet. It features a forum for sharing information and a regularly expanded resources section featuring useful links, general resources, information about youth justice campaigns and academic research. We have reached over 30,000 people through the Sentence Trouble project to date with numbers expected to increase still further as we start to roll the rest of the youth justice programme out more widely. On 18 November 2010 the Sentence Trouble resources were one of a handful of projects to be awarded a High Commendation in the 2010 Children and Young People Now Awards. Working with a variety of organisations including the Youth Justice Board (who have provided funding and support) and the National Offender Management Service, the Trust is also delivering communication needs training across the youth justice sector, including to YOT, YOI, STC and SCH staff. Funding provided by the YJB has enabled us to continue rolling out training to YOTs and has also enabled us to roll-out training to Welsh YOTs. The Trust’s — — — —

programmes to date have achieved the following: Total number of YOTs who have accessed the Trust’s training—74. Total number of YOT staff who have accessed the training—1,700. Have distributed 40,000 copies of the Sentence Trouble booklet. In partnership with YJB and HM Courts and Tribunals Service we have provided three bespoke communication needs workshop sessions for magistrates and the legal profession to 120 people. — Have provided training session for managers from HM Probation Service. — Currently delivering bespoke workshop sessions for staff at YOIs, STCs and SCHs and working with the YJB and NOMs to develop sessions suitable for delivery as part of the new training programme that will replace the Juvenile Awareness Staff Programme (JASP).

Youth Justice Workforce As mentioned previously, at least 60% of young people in custody have communication needs, significantly higher than the general population. People with SLCN have difficulties in communicating with others. This may be because they cannot say what they want to, they have difficulty understanding what is being said to them or they do not understand social rules. For some this may be temporary whilst for others their needs will be complex and long term. These needs can impact on a young person’s behaviour, their confidence and their relationships with other people, alongside educational progression and attainment. The ways in which youth justice staff interact with the young people they work with can make a big difference. It can help young people to engage and want to participate; they are more likely to understand and less likely to become aggressive or disengage; less time will be spent on managing behaviour. Awareness and good practice strategies around speech, language and communication needs will ensure language and communication is not a barrier to education and skills training and therefore enable any other direct work to be more successful. Ensuring that youth justice staff understand what communication needs are and how they

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [13-03-2013 14:40] Job: 026308 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026308/026308_w012_michelle_YJIII 26 Sara Pearce.xml


can affect young people, and ensuring that staff have strategies to support young people can ensure that young people engage more fully and more often. These young people are often not able to benefit from verbally mediated interventions such as education and offender behaviour work which can contribute to re-offending. TCT has found that the provision of young offender learning is often FE college led and that there is a wider pattern of evidence that FE provision for young people with SLCN does not meet their needs. The Bercow Review estimated that 210,000 children and young people pass through the Criminal Justice System each year, who may benefit from preventative approaches which ensure early identification and support for children who are recognised as vulnerable or at risk of offending. Vulnerable young people with communication problems may be unable to express themselves effectively, resulting in disruptive and aggressive behaviour. Research has found that offenders gaining oral communication skills qualifications were 50% less likely to re-offend in the year after release than the national average.10 TCT has found the justice workforce needs better training and support to help those young people with SLCN. TCT is therefore, running a programme of work focused on working to increase the awareness of the scale and the impact of communication needs on young people within the youth justice system by producing a range of materials for staff working in Youth Offending Teams, Secure Children’s Homes, Secure Training Centres and Young Offenders Institutions. Evaluation of the training we have provided to YOTs has shown that YOT staff are committed to improving the lives and outcomes of the young people they work with. In some areas staff have used the Trust’s training to help build on existing strategies to support young people with speech, language and communication needs. In other areas where knowledge and strategies have been more limited YOT staff have seen the significant benefits that this support can provide young people and are adapting the ways in which they work to achieve better outcomes. Feedback to the training has been largely excellent but it has been the enthusiasm of YOT staff that has made it a success. Many staff, in often very busy environments are finding time to introduce changes to working practice to better support the young people they work with, despite time and resource issues. However, YOT staff are working creativity to adapt strategies to suit the needs of the young people they work with; “I had a young person, only 12, finding it hard to engage, I took a blank a3 sheet, drew a road, drew stages of his offence, drew stop signs at points at which he could offend. He really enjoyed it and benefited [from the session]. He seemed quite shocked, when he realised: ‘I shouldn’t have run away from police, I could have stayed at home.’ Realisations without prompting. Simple exercise that he could really engage with. YP really enjoyed it and said thank you. Nice surprise. Mum said he had never engaged before like that.” “Changed the style of some of the meetings, multi agencies—used to be professionals, families and young person and language far too confusing—now I would meet with family and young person go through things with them and then go in the multi agency meeting.” “Timetables have changed across the whole team. Text message reminders for sessions are used more since training. We now identify their preferred method of communication and there has been increased attendance for some.” Secure Institutions Currently secure institutions frequently identify young people with speech and language needs, but our experience is that in many cases these needs are not being addressed through any systematic commissioning process. Instead, facilities adapt services or have a member of staff with experience of speech and language needs by chance. Currently, only a small number youth custodial establishments have access to speech and language therapists. The Trust would like to see more effort from the Government so that the need for specialist youth training for magistrates and defence lawyers is addressed and that the minimum standard of youth training in the secure estate to include speech, language and disability awareness, The Trust acknowledges that only a third of staff in Youth Offending Institutions have completed the Juvenile Awareness Staff Programme (JASP) training but would emphasise the importance of the on-going collaborative work of the JASP Steering Group which is reviewing the current raining programme to ensure it more fully meets the needs of staff. The Trust forms part of this group, along with the Youth Justice Board, National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and other key organisations in the sector. The Trust would also like to see the Government do more to increase access to speech, language and communication needs training and resources across the youth justice workforce, including policy officers. Screening and Early Intervention TCT would like to bring to the Committee’s attention the importance of screening to identify young people at sufficient risk of SLCN to warrant further investigation, and immediate preventive intervention delivered by 10

Moseley et al, The impact of ESB oral communication courses in HM Prisons—an independent evaluation in Developing oral communication and productive thinking skills in HM Prisons (2006), Learning and Skills Research Centre.



staff in front-line universal services. Speech and language skills are a critical factor in social disadvantage and in the intergenerational cycles that perpetuate poverty. Poor language skills are the key reason why, by the age of 22 months, a more able child from a low income home will begin to be overtaken developmentally by an initially less able child from a high-income home—and why by the age of five, the gap has widened still more. Low income children lag their high income counterparts at school entry by sixteen months in vocabulary. The gap in language is very much larger than gaps in other cognitive skills. Research shows the level of speech and language development in children as young as two years of age is a powerful predictor of their future educational social and personal achievement. If we can identify and support children with communication difficulties at this early stage it is much more likely these difficulties can be resolved. The Communication Trust supports a graduated response at both the universal and targeted level to ensure support is available for a wide range of communication needs. In our experience, unaddressed language delay, even for those with high incidence, low need SLCN, can lead to permanently entrenched difficulties in the longer term. Unaddressed SLCN caused by impairment is also a public health issue. Those with unaddressed, speech language and communication needs are at risk of problems with literacy, numeracy and learning.11 They are less likely to leave school with qualifications12 or job prospects and are in danger of becoming NEET (Not in Employment, Education or Training at 16–18), as are young people who have spent time in alternative provision.13 Speech, language and communication needs are strongly associated with mental health problems as well as other social emotional and behavioural difficulties.14 However, where specialist intervention is required, screening in the early years would lead to more timely and accurate referral—essential given the pressure on scarce specialist speech and language services. Sadly, at present, many children are not identified and do not receive the vital speech and language therapy they need from an early age. Many children are wrongly labelled as having behavioural problems, without any recognition of their communication difficulties. Many of these children will then go on to offend. In order to improve this situation the Communication Trust would like to see SLCN regarded as a public health issue under the Health and Social Care Bill reforms. A number of Primary Care Trusts and local authorities in England have recognised the importance of boosting early language and communication development. They have aligned the work of speech and language therapists with the Healthy Child Programme and Sure Start Children’s Centres to create a powerful public health approach based on primary prevention. However, many local areas are still not doing enough to address SLCN and it is clear that the economic and social benefits of early intervention and prevention of SLCN must be better promoted. The focus of the Trust’s work is on improving functional communication skills to improve access to learning and to other programmes intended to reduce re-offending. The Trust has rolled out this work to community and secure estate settings with significant interest from centres who see the value of this work to both custodial and educational staff. March 2012

Written evidence from Alcohol Concern Alcohol Concern’s submission focuses on the Committee inquiry’s stated intention to explore: — The role of the youth justice system in diverting at-risk young people away from first-time offending. —

The evidence base for preventing offending and reducing re-offending and the extent to which this informs interventions in custody and the community.

1. Alcohol Concern believes that significant gaps exist in the understanding of the role alcohol plays in offending behaviour and indeed, alcohol usage more broadly amongst young people in the youth justice system. This knowledge gap limits the development of effective interventions to deter “at-risk” young people from beginning to drink alcohol and prevent offending before they ever enter the justice system and re-offend once in the system. 2. The relationship between alcohol and youth crime is complex and understudied. Research, that is commonly referenced, suggests that 40% of young offenders in detention had drunk or were drunk at the time of offence.15 However this study was conducted in 1992 since which young people’s alcohol consumption levels have on average more than doubled. The extent to which alcohol is an aggravating or contributory factor in the act of committing an offence also remains unclear. Certainly, there appears to be significant relationships 11 12

13

14

15

Stothard et al 1998 and Communication Disability and Literacy Difficulties I CAN Talk (2006). Snowling M J, Adams J, Bishop D V M and Stothard S E (2001). Educational Attainments of School Leaver with a Pre-school History of Speech-Language Impairments IJLCD Vol 36. I CAN Talk Series 4 Language and Social Exclusion. http://www.ican.org.uk/upload2/publications/ language%20and%20social%20exclusion%20report.pdf Toppelberg C O, Shapiro T (2000). Language disorders: A 10-year research update review. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 39: 143–152. Cookson, H. “Alcohol use and offender type in young offenders”: British Journal of Criminology, (1992) 32 (3) p 352–360.



between alcohol and certain violent offences16 and some evidence that binge drinking in young adults is statistically related to offending behaviour.17 It is only by better understanding these relationships that interventions can be tailored effectively. 3. Currently, a great deal of information is recorded by Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) through Asset client assessment that does not appear to be collated or consistently analysed centrally by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) or other bodies. Consequently, opportunities are being missed to build an evidence base for the development of interventions that could reduce consumption and prevent alcohol-related offences. 4. For those young people who enter the youth justice system with alcohol issues the pathway to support appears relatively robust. In 2010–11 youth/criminal justice was the primary referral source of young people under 18 to substance misuse services, accounting for 35% of all referrals.18 Alcohol is the second most commonly misused substance accounting for 15,684 young people who received treatment in 2009–10 as a primary or adjunctive substance. However, given the particular risks faced by young people in the justice system it is vital that interventions and resources are tailored and targeted toward the specific needs of this cohort. 5. Currently little evidence exists about what works effectively with youth offender groups to reduce their alcohol misuse risk. Researching the relationship between alcohol and offending would support the development of evidence based interventions that could prevent offending as well as reduce individual harm. March 2012

Written evidence from Professor Brian Littlechild 1. Thank you for the opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee. This submission is partly based upon work undertaken by the author for the Council of Europe. A number of the recommendations from this work were adopted by the Council in February 2011 (see http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/ATListingDetails_E.asp? ATID=11305 ) 2. This submission focuses on the nature of personal responsibility and the factors affecting the commitment to positive social relationships from young people towards others in their networks and communities, and how positive attitudes and behaviours might best be fostered within them, although it cannot go into full detail or give all evidence for points made due to the word limit for submissions. 3. The main points made relate to the significant minority of young people who feel, and are, disaffected from positive socialising influences. 4. This submission thus sets out arguments for policies based upon the following: (i) Providing specific family support/parenting programmes services based on disadvantaged, high crime, low educational attainment, high unemployment rate areas, which support families and young people without labelling them as “feckless”. (ii) Developing restorative justice and mediation programmes in schools, communities, and at family level as preventative measures, as well as within youth justice programmes. (iii) Encapsulating a specific “developing responsibility” focus for interventions with young people within multi-agency approaches and programmes at local levels with police, education, social services, youth work, faith communities, etc, in order to plan and provide for the wide variety of problems and needs of children, young people and their families. (iv) Developing mentoring programmes using positive role model volunteers, appropriate peers and sessional workers who have credibility with young people in that geographical area/ethnic/faith group, who befriend the young person, and provide concern, emotional support and role models to help increase social inclusion and feelings of connection between the young person and their wider community. (v) Providing support for students and staff in schools from specialist social work/psychology/ mental health support workers and specialist teachers trained not just in academic development and attainment skills, but also citizenship and relationship skills, and in dealing with difficult behaviour. (vi) Community development/youth work with ethnic minority/faith groups in identified geographical areas. (vii) Developing the use of small institutions with well trained and supported staff for residential and custody regimes where custody becomes necessary. 5. I have worked with young offenders for over 40 years, and carried out many research projects into interventions with young offenders and potential young offenders. I have lectured and published widely in this 16 17 18

“Young people, Alcohol and Crime”: Home Office Research Bulletin (1990) 28. Richardson, A and Budd, T. Home Office Research Study 263: Alcohol, crime and disorder: a study of young adults (2003). Statistics for the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (2011) http://www.nta.nhs.uk/uploads/ypannualreportstatisticalreportfinal.pdf



field, presenting at many national and international conferences. I currently chair Youth Offender Panels, and have done so for over eight years. Fostering Positive Attitudes and Motivations in Young People 6. Our current policies and practices are viewing the problems through the wrong end of the telescope. We famously have one of highest custody rates in Western Europe, even though it has dropped somewhat in recent years. There is no evidence that this high use of custody has led to less crime from young people than other European countries. It is expensive, and is not fit for purpose; we know that the reoffending rate following custody is stubbornly around 70–80%, even if there has been a small decline in this rate in recent years. Such custodial measures actually destroy the potential to build positive attitudes towards and within social relationships. It does not and cannot help engender respect for others or enhance empathy to others, which is what is required to advance positive social attitudes and skills. Although the population of young people in the secure estate has reduced so that in 2009–10 there was an average of 2,418 young people in custody at any one time (Youth Justice Board, 2011), it is still one of the highest rates of juvenile incarceration in Europe. Finland up until 1990 saw increasing use of custody, but it has now decreased significantly—there were 100 in the 15–17 age group in custody 1970s, and less than 10 in 1990s. In Finland and Norway the normal total is now three to five (Finland has a population of just over five million, Norway just under five million). We also have a poor record of dealing with vulnerable young people in such institutions, with a high rate of self-harm and suicide. We need to focus in the future much more on concentrating on reintegrative goals and methods. 7. Since 2005, Finnish law promotes reintegrative goals—“in order to prevent new offences, and to promote the social adjustment of the young offender”. 8. The reduction in imprisonment in Finland came from a stress on legal safeguards and less repressive measures, and concerns about the high cost and ineffectiveness of custodial institutions. The juvenile judiciary in Scandinavian countries also tends to be social-legal based. 9. Only the truly dangerous young people should be in custody, and these should be in different regimes than we have at present. Our emphasis needs to change to means to develop positive attitudes and relationships by way of preventative and restorative interventions. The nature and effects of personal choice and responsibility 10. Whilst recognising the impact of social and structural factors in social exclusion and offending, we need to recognise to a greater extent the nature and effects of personal choice and feelings of responsibility towards others from young people as the young person’s own personal part in working on their social and interpersonal development. This can be achieved by a variety of means to foster their understanding of and motivation towards positive attitudes and relationships. These personal and structural risk factors include the young person’s attitudes and motivations towards engaging with educational/training opportunities/job markets, and commitment to socially acceptable relationships and activities within communities, schools and families. 11. Certain theories can be valuable in understanding responses to young offenders, eg labelling theory. However, such theories do not address the difficulties and needs of individual young people, their families and communities on a personal interaction level, such as personal motivation to socially acceptable income generation; attitudes towards others; and feelings of social responsibility to others (Littlechild, 2009, 2011; Littlechild and Sender, 2010; Stephenson et al, 2007). This now needs to become a central feature of policy. Risk Factors for Offending amongst Young People 12. Key factors which evidence suggests are associated with youth offending are poor education; poor employment prospects; inconsistent parenting; poor housing or homelessness; poor physical and mental health; poor access to financial resources; peer pressure; anti-social behaviour; drug and alcohol abuse and difficulties in forming and sustaining relationships (Stephenson et al, 2007; Littlechild, 2009, 2011; Littlechild and Sender, 2010; Hales et al. 2009). All these need to form part of an integrated whole, within a set of policies on social cohesion, with the focus of developing empathy and individual responsibility underpinning these. Parenting 13. Parenting patterns are a key area of risk in the development of young offenders (Stephenson et al, 2007; Littlechild, 2011). Barlow, Parsons and Stewart-Brown (2005) found that group-based parenting programmes can be effective in improving the emotional and behavioural adjustment of older children. Targeted programmes 14. Multi-agency early intervention programmes can be effective in reducing the risk of youth offending if targeted at high-risk children and young people in recognised geographical areas of poverty and disadvantage. Such programmes need to take into account the specific needs of different economic, ethnic, faith and cultural groups (Communities that Care, 2001; Stephenson et al, 2007; Allen, 2008).



Education and family responses 15. Low attainment, persistent truancy, exclusion, Special Educational Needs, and disabilities such as dyslexia, are some of the most prevalent risk factors associated with exclusion and offending behaviour. The correlations between low attainment in education, offending and re-offending are well documented. Education provision potentially has a key preventative role. Nearly half of those under the age of 18 in custody in England have literacy and numeracy skills inferior to the norm of 11 year-olds (Layard and Dunn, 2009). 16. The wider role of an educative focus of social development rather than just academic performance is recognised in the pedagogical approaches in such countries as Germany, which uses “social training” courses which involve regular meetings with social workers and intensive weekend arrangements with sporting activities and challenges to engage and provide activities for young people to foster the development of social skills and appropriate behaviour. 17. There is a problem at present with disaffected young people in that schools often further exclude such young people. There is a need to be develop better strategies to combat this, such as policies that encourage schools to deal better with the disruptive behaviours such young people can exhibit (at present the opposite is often the case), with better support for students and teachers from social workers/psychologists/mental health workers/specialist teachers trained in not just academic development, but also citizenship and relationship skills, and on dealing with difficult behaviour. This is in order to aid these young people’s life chances and commitment to positive social behaviours as well as protect the rights of other school students who may have their education compromised by the disruption some young people cause. 18. Voluntary sector projects which recruit team members from previous service users may enhance their integrity in the eyes of the most disengaged young people, particularly among those whose past experience has led them to be suspicious of, or threatened by, authority (11 Million, 2009). 19. Provision of specialist enhanced educational schemes, and mentoring for parents and young people from credible role models from within their own communities can be important in avoiding disaffection, as are community based groups which are set up to challenge and engage young people in activities which they see as relevant to their culture and ambitions, and by peer mentoring schemes for young people and parents within programmes to improve commitment to and confidence in education, and thus enhance such young people’s life chances (Allen, 2007; Stephenson, 2007). Low attainment in young people is partly due to family factors— key here are strategies to involve and engage parents in the aims of the school, and in encouraging and supporting their children in their education. Poor engagement with schools by young people is correlated with weak parental supervision, and poor attachment to parents and siblings; all areas to be considered for parenting programmes in groups or by individual professionals and mentors to support parents in these areas. Ethnically sensitive work with socially excluded young people/offenders 20. Children and young people from certain ethnic minority and faith communities continue in many countries, including the UK, to be overrepresented throughout the youth justice system (Sender et al, 2006). In the police and prison systems in the UK, official reports have determined that there are forms of discrimination that act against the rights and interests of young Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups (MacPherson, 1999). Training and monitoring of agency and staff approaches in relevant agencies—police, judiciary, custody staff, school staff, social work staff—to ensure fair treatment of all young people (Sender et al, 2006) is important to ensure greater compliance with UNCRC and Council of Europe requirements. Restorative Justice and Mediation 21. A key feature of social exclusion is not just economic and educational/training and job opportunities and difficulties, but also learning about, and attitudes to, relationships (Littlechild, 2009, 2011; Littlechild and Sender, 2010; Stephenson et al, 2007). Restorative justice and mediation (Littlechild and Sender, 2010) are increasingly being examined by different agencies in order to develop new ways of addressing and enhancing young people’s commitment to, and understanding of, their responsibilities for their behaviour- both criminal and antisocial—as it affects others. Such approaches include restorative justice and mediation at all levelsfrom young people in schools through to communities where there are tensions between groups (ethnic/religious or otherwise). 22. In recent years, restorative justice and mediation approaches have been put forward as ways to move beyond the binary divide of welfare and justice based approaches, and to compensate for areas they do not deal with (Littlechild and Sender, 2010). These approaches concentrate on the idea of repairing the harm done, allowing the (appropriately supported and protected) victim to have an apology and/or reparation, and to encourage and require the offender to feel some shame and sorrow for what they have done. They have been used most extensively in the Scandinavian countries, worked in with their welfare-based models (LappiSeppälä, 2006). It has struggled to make headway in England, partly because the adversarial approach here militates against offenders admitting to what they have done, and the effects of it, as this could negatively affect the outcome for them in such a system. These approaches have though been used successfully in various institutional settings (Littlechild, 2009; Littlechild and Sender, 2010).



23. Making reparation to the victim directly or indirectly by work on community projects is an important part of restorative justice, as is making a genuine apology to the victim, preferably face-to face. The benefits of restorative justice have been shown to be improved sense of feeling that the young people and the victims were part of the process; an understanding that actions have consequences; improved skills for managing conflict; greater empathy towards others; increased mutual respect; and improved feeling of community (Littlechild, 2009). 24. The UK Government’s Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, blamed the riots in England in August 2011 on a “‘broken penal system’ that has failed to rehabilitate a group of hardcore offenders he describes as the ‘criminal classes’”. Clarke said the civil unrest had laid bare an urgent need for penal reform to stop reoffending among “a feral underclass, cut off from the mainstream in everything but its materialism”, but that punishment alone was “not enough… That is the legacy of a broken penal system—one whose record in preventing reoffending has been straightforwardly dreadful…. (where) individuals and families familiar with the justice system… haven’t been changed by their past punishments” (Lewis et al, 2011). 25. Clarke stated that: “The general recipe for a productive member of society is no secret. It has not changed since I was inner-cities minister 25 years ago. It’s about having a job, a strong family, a decent education and beneath it all, an attitude that shares in the values of mainstream society.” 26. Such values need to include proactive and co-ordinated multi-agency approaches to the development of young people’s commitment, attitudes to and skills within positive interpersonal and social relationships. Conclusions 27. Policies and programmes need now to have foci on developing cohesion within and between communities, families, and on engendering feelings of inclusion, so that young people feel positively part of family and wider community life. One key means to do this is by supporting parents to be better equipped to inculcate within their children positive attitudes and skills, as developed in parenting programmes for example, within a set of non-blaming policies and services that are not based on punitive, retributive approaches. This is key to aiding young people to develop in socially and legally acceptable ways, and feel and be more engaged with, and concerned and empathetic about, others. 28. Locally organised inter-agency and multi-professional committees are a key prerequisite to the prevention of social exclusion and the development of positive social and interpersonal skills and attitudes. These should have senior management representatives from local agencies to identify risks/action/plans for excluded groups, communities and individual young people, and have a duty to develop greater social inclusion, greater participation and achieving greater commitment by parents and children to education and socially acceptable behaviour and personal responsibility, by developing a specific “developing responsibility” focus for interventions with young people. References Allen R (2008). Crime and Social Policy, paper delivered at ICPA/Norwegian Prison Service Conference on High Risk Offenders Under 18 Retrieved from (www.prisonstudies.org/.../ Crime%20and%20Social%20Policy.doc) [Accessed 6 November 2010] Barlow, J Parsons and S Stewart-Brown (2005). Preventing emotional and behavioural problems: the effectiveness of parenting programmes with children less than three years of age, Child Care, Health and Development, pp 33–42. Communities that Care (2001). Risk and Protective Factors for Youth Crime—Prevalence, Salience, and Reduction. Report for the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. 11 Million (2009). Standing Together: Principles to Reduce Children and Young People’s Involvement in Gun and Knife Crime, Children’s Commissioner for England. London: Retrieved from www.11MILLION.org.uk [Accessed13 September 2011] Hales J, Nevill C, Pudney S & Tipping S (2009). Longitudinal Survey of the Offending, Crime and Justice Survey 2003–2006. London: Home Office. Lappi-Seppälä T (2006). “Finland: A Model of Tolerance?” In: J Muncie, & B Goldson (Eds.) Comparative Youth Justice pp. 177–195. London: Sage. Layard R & Dunn J (2009). A Good Childhood, Searching for Values in a Competitive Age. London: Penguin. Lewis P, Taylor M & Ball B (2011). “Kenneth Clarke blames English riots on a broken penal system”. Monday 5 September 2011. Retrieved from guardian.co.uk. [Accessed 11 November 2011]. Littlechild B (2009). Conflict Resolution, Restorative Justice Approaches and Bullying in Young People’s Residential Units, Children and Society, first published online on 1 September 2009 as http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122582008/abstract



Littlechild B and Helen Sender H (2010). The introduction of restorative justice approaches in young people’s residential units: A critical evaluation, NSPCC http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/Findings/restorative_ justice_report_wdf72979.pdf MacPherson L (1999). The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. London: UK Government. Retrieved from www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/4262.htm [Accessed 20 November 2010]. Sender H, Littlechild B & Smith N (2006). Black and Minority Ethnic groups and Youth Offending. Youth and Policy 93: 61–76. Stephenson M (2007). Young People and Offending: Education, youth justice and social inclusion. Cullompton, Devon, Willan Publishing. Stephenson M, Giller H & Brown S (2007). Effective Practice in Youth Justice. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing. Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (2011). YJB Corporate and Business Plan 2011–12—2014–15. London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. March 2012

Written evidence from the Criminal Bar Association The Criminal Bar Association (“CBA”) represents about 3,600 employed and self employed members of the Bar who prosecute and defend the most serious cases across the whole of England and Wales. It is the largest specialist bar association. The high international reputation enjoyed by our criminal justice system owes a great deal to the professionalism, commitment and ethical standards of our practitioners. Their technical knowledge, skill and quality of advocacy guarantee the delivery of justice in our courts; ensuring on our part that all persons enjoy a fair trial and that the adversarial system, which is at the heart of criminal justice is maintained. The CBA welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Justice Committee’s call for evidence but our input is limited as the specific headings that the inquiry intends to explore are generally outside the ambit of the working criminal practitioner and are not essential considerations for advocates conducting trials, particularly in the higher courts. However we make the following general observations: (i) As a result of the increasing numbers of knife Homicide and related cases, we have noted an accompanying increase in the number of children and young people appearing as defendants in serious criminal cases at the Crown Court where the hearings are formal and cater to the needs of young defendants far less than the Youth Court. (ii) Those of us who deal with these cases see little or no input from the Youth Justice Board: the trial is governed by the application of a very limited range of “Special Measures” for defendants allowed only at the discretion of the individual judge presiding and often only at the insistence of the defence advocate. (iii) Sentence is in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s Overarching Principles— Sentencing Youths. (iv) There is a current perception that young people are more likely to be charged and brought before the courts for minor offences; thus criminalising them when historically, they would have been dealt with by the schools. We make it clear that we have no empirical evidence but Regular Youth Court practitioners report a greater tendency to charge, for example, low level assaults or public order matters arising out of what are essentially silly disputes between school children. And in response to the specified headings: 1. We are unable to comment on the targeting of resources within the Youth Justice System as we do not know how they are allocated or on what basis. 2. We support the notion of restorative justice programmes involving young offenders but we are unaware of any so are unable to comment on its effectiveness. However, in theory, we commend its use: — Junior members of the Bar (who inevitably represent young clients in the Youth Courts) report that in reply to the question “Why did you do this” the response is “I don’t know” or “I just wasn’t thinking”—thus demonstrating that often young clients have never stopped to think about the impact of their offending; restorative justice at least goes some way to addressing this. 3. In our experience custody is always considered as a last resort, it is the severity of the offence that dictates whether the custody threshold has been crossed. However, age is always an acknowledged mitigating factor and experience has shown that: — short periods of detention often expose a vulnerable young person to others with far more experience of the criminal justice system than themselves to the detriment of the former;



—

first time periods of detention are unlikely to be long enough for the young person to receive much by way of education, training or rehabilitation as facilities are limited; and — those who are sentenced to short term periods of detention will often go on to re-offend. 4. The majority of young people appearing in the criminal courts have troubled and deprived upbringings: — often their parents are drink/drug addicts and many have experienced violence in the home; — it is not uncommon for many to have spent time being cared for by either members of their extended family or social services; and — more often than not, they will not be in mainstream education or work. By the time the young person becomes embroiled in the system, the damage has often been done and it is difficult to see how the Youth Justice System can really address offending alone without addressing the other aspects which have contributed to the circumstances of offending. By its very nature, the Youth Justice System addresses the symptoms but not the cause of youth offending. 5. We are unable to comment on the governance of the Youth Justice System as we have nothing to do with it. 6. We do not believe that the Youth Justice System meets the needs of all young offenders regardless of age, gender, ethnicity or mental health because their needs differ so greatly and they need considerably more help than adult offenders. March 2012

Written evidence from the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services and Clinks 1. This response is also supported by NCVYS and Clinks member Leap Confronting Conflict (a) Clinks supports the Voluntary and Community Sector working with offenders in England and Wales. Clinks’s aim is to ensure the Sector and all those with whom it works, are informed and engaged in order to transform the lives of offenders and their communities. (b) The National Council for Voluntary Youth Services (NCVYS) is a diverse and growing network of over 280 national organisations and regional and local networks that work with and for young people. NCVYS’s mission is to work with our members from voluntary and community organisations to build thriving communities and sustainable networks that help all young people achieve their potential. (c) Please contact Katie O’Donoghue, Katie.O’[email protected], 0207 248 3538, Clinks, 59 Carter Lane, London EC4V 5AQ or Dom Weinberg, [email protected], 020 7278 1041, 3rd Floor Lancaster House, 33 Islington High Street, London, N1 9LH for further information. (d) Executive summary: NCVYS and Clinks support the work of the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) Sector in the youth justice system and we believe that the Sector is well placed to offer the holistic services necessary to meet the needs of particularly vulnerable groups of offenders such as children and young people. 2. The targeting of resources, including the ability of youth offending teams and their multi-agency partners to operate effectively in the current economic climate The role of the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) Sector in the youth justice system (a) The VCSE Sector has a vital role to play in diverting children and young people away from offending and the effective rehabilitation and resettlement of children and young people who are caught up in the criminal justice system (CJS). VCSE organisations can offer a wide range of services necessary to prevent or break the cycle of reoffending, including education and training services, health services, arts-based interventions, resettlement and aftercare provision and support to access mainstream children and youth services. Recent literature on desistance from crime has stressed the importance of a consistent, holistic approach to service provision in achieving the desired outcomes of reduced reoffending.19 The flexibility and expertise of VCSE organisations makes the Sector well placed to offer an individually-tailored framework of “wrap-around” support and to meet the specific needs of particularly vulnerable groups of offenders, including children and young people. This is supported by a recent academic review of “what works” in engaging young offenders which found that effective programmes include “the adoption of person-centred, collaborative and ‘clientdriven’ approaches”.20 (b) There is a wealth of evidence demonstrating the impact the Sector can make in reducing reoffending among young people. The recent Centre for Social Justice report, Rules of Engagement: Changing the heart of 19

20

A Owers et al. 2011. Review of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. Online: http://www.dojni.gov.uk/agencies/owers-reviewof-the-northern-ireland-prison-service.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] Prior, D and Mason, P 2010. A different kind of evidence? Looking for “what works” in engaging young offenders. Youth Justice Journal, December 2010, 10(3) 211–226, Sage.



youth justice, included details of many effective VCSE organisations.21 Catch 22 has shown that 90% of its programme entrants who have been involved in crime will not reoffend while working with it.22 Leap Confronting Conflict has evidence that many of their programmes have reduced offending and anti-social behaviour with huge potential cost savings.23 St Giles Trust has had a number of independent evaluations of their projects which suggest they have a cost-benefit ratio of at least 5:1 and often at least 10:1.24 (c) Many other VCSE organisations working with children, young people and families will also have a huge impact on the offending behaviour of children and young people. Yet a Clinks report has noted that measuring reductions in offending is not practical for most smaller or medium sized organisations and suggests that the Sector “should focus on demonstrating how incremental steps form the building blocks for reducing reoffending.”25 NCVYS and Clinks are working with our members to help them demonstrate their impact and many are beginning to show how valuable their work is.26 The VCSE Sector in the current economic climate (d) However, there is much evidence to suggest that the VCSE Sector is in an increasingly fragile state as a result of funding cuts and a simultaneous increase in demand for its services. Clinks’ recent follow-up survey into how VCSE organisations were affected by the economic downturn during 2011, When the Dust Settles: An update, found that: —

86% of organisations surveyed have been negatively affected by the economic downturn and policy changes—up from 70% six months previously.

—

95% of the organisations expect to be imminently impacted and are deeply worried about the future.

—

Over 80% of organisations surveyed have experienced a reduction in income combined with increased competition for shrinking funding sources.

—

There was an average reduction in income from grant funding of 42%, from public fundraising of 30% and earned income of 21%. The income loss particularly affects smaller organisations (employing 1–10 staff).27

(e) However, there is much evidence to suggest that the VCSE Sector is in an increasingly fragile state as a result of funding cuts and a simultaneous increase in demand for its services. (f) Similarly, NCVYS Comprehensive Cuts reports have also documented how services for young people have seen heavy cuts.28 The Education Select Committee’s services for young people inquiry found that there have been “very significant, disproportionate cuts” to local authority youth services, ranging from 20%–100%.29 The Young Foundation report Growing interest? Estimated that Voluntary and Community Youth Sector income “fell by approximately £110 million last year; a loss of up to 23% of the Sector’s total income”.30 Cuts to related services may also impact upon attempts to create a more welfare-based approach to dealing with young offenders. For example, a survey of health trusts and councils conducted by YoungMinds found that over half planned to reduce spending on children and young people’s mental health services.31 This is of particular concern, given the prevalence of diagnosable mental health conditions among the young offender population. One study found that mental health needs are three times more common among young people in the CJS than their peers who do not offend.32 Homelessness and supported housing services, which provide an important resettlement option for young offenders, have also seen significant cuts and subsequent reductions in bed spaces.33 21

22

23 24 25

26

27

28

29

30 31

32

33

Centre for Social Justice. 2012. Rules of engagement: Changing the heart of youth justice. Online: http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/CSJ_Youth_Justice_Full_Report_WEB%20%282%29.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] Catch 22. 2009. Life changing results: Our services are here to help you achieve them. Online: http://www.catch-22.org.uk/ Files/Commissioners-brochure.pdf?id=4b3218c7–895d-4256–9a40–9dac00a2a49b. [Last accessed 13/03/2012] http://www.leapconfrontingconflict.org.uk/why-we-are-here/making-an-impact/quantifying-the-benefits http://www.stgilestrust.org.uk/s/stats-and-info/p518/evaluation-reports-on-st-giles-trust-services.html Clinks. November 2010. A New Focus on Measuring Outcomes. Online: http://www.clinks.org/assets/files/ Measuring%20Outcomes%20Discussion%20Paper.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] New Philanthropy Capital. 2011. Measuring together: Impact measurement in the youth justice sector. Online: www.philanthropycapital.org/publications/education/shared_measurement.aspx [last accessed 20.3.2012] Clinks. 2012. When the dust settles: An update. Online: http://www.clinks.org/assets/files/PDFs/Press%20Releases/clinks_whenthe-dust-settles_FINAL.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] NCVYS. 2011. Comprehensive Cuts summary: Key points from the reports. Online: http://bit.ly/CompCutsSummary [last accessed 20.3.2012] Quoted in NCVYS. 2011. Comprehensive Cuts 3: Where are we now for young people and the voluntary and community youth sector. Online: http://www.ncvys.org.uk/UserFiles/Comprehensive_Cuts_3.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] Quoted in NCVYS. 2011. Comprehensive Cuts 3. Young Minds. 2011. Briefing on cuts to children and young people’s mental health services Online: http://www.youngminds.org.uk/assets/0000/1364/CAMHS_cuts_briefing_draft__3.doc [last accessed 20.3.2012] Hagel. 2002. Quoted in Centre for Mental Health. 2010. Reaching out, reaching in: Promoting mental health and emotional well-being in secure settings. Online: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/Centre_for_MH_Promoting_mh_in_secure_ settings.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] Homeless Link. 2011. Counting the cost of cuts to homelessness support. Online: http://homeless.org.uk/sites/default/files/ Homeless_Link_Counting_the_Cost_of_Cuts_final.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012]



(g) We therefore welcome the fact that the committee has highlighted the importance of safeguarding multiagency working in the current economic climate. However, qualitative evidence from Clinks’ economic downturn survey and a range of NCVYS and Clinks listening events with VCSE organisations have highlighted the difficulties experienced by VCSE representatives in maintaining effective joint working with the statutory sector. Important strategic and delivery contacts between the two sectors at the local level have been disrupted by the impact of funding cuts and redundancies.34 Furthermore, several VCSE Sector representatives have pointed to a tendency among local authorities to safeguard statutory sector jobs by bringing back “in house” services which were previously provided by VCSE organisations. Respondents to the Clinks survey also highlighted the fact that economic uncertainty has led to heightened competition not just between the statutory sector and the VCSE Sector, but between different VCSE organisations.35 (h) There is thus considerable cause for concern regarding the future role of the VCSE Sector across the youth justice system. A number of organisations involved in supporting young offenders have already been forced to cease some or all of their services as a result of the current financial climate, and numerous others seem destined to follow suit. It is unlikely that the heightened competition between potential partners and providers as a result of economic uncertainty will be conducive to either effective multi-agency working, or the youth justice system’s stated aim of preventing offending by young people. The changing commissioning landscape and payment by results (i) At the time of writing, the exact form of the future commissioning landscape remains very uncertain for VCSE organisations, at a time when the Sector is already facing the impact of funding cuts and an increased demand on its services. The most recent version of NOMS Commissioning Intentions Discussion Document 2012–13 remains subject to the need to align with the recommendations of the forthcoming probation review, the Health and Social Care Bill, and the election of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in November 2012. The pace and volume of these planned reforms are thus of critical importance to the VCSE Sector. The full impact of commissioning changes is unlikely to be felt until the financial year 2013–14, and it is likely that many VCSE organisations working in youth justice will have to cease providing some or all of their services in the time that it takes for new structures to “bed in”. While much of this uncertainty is due to economic factors beyond the statutory sector’s control, early and effective consultation with the VCSE Sector would greatly assist the latter in preparing for change. Infrastructure organisations such as Clinks and NCVYS provide one obvious mechanism for this. (j) There remains considerable confusion within the VCSE Sector as to the powers of PCCs and how best to prepare for their arrival. A survey conducted by the Safer Future Communities (SFC) project at the end of 2011 found that one in three community groups was not yet aware of the reforms.36 At a time when the relationship between police and young people is attracting national attention, it is critical that the specific needs of young people at risk of offending are reflected in the new local policing plans in a sensitive and informed manner. The funding being transferred to PCCs for youth crime prevention will not be ringfenced, and it is therefore important that VCSE organisations working with young people are given the opportunity to form effective partnerships with their elected commissioners at the earliest opportunity and to access this new stream of funding. This could be achieved through both early engagement with the local VCSE network leads identified by SFC and representation of VCSE organisations working with young people on the new Police and Crime Panels. It will also be vitally important for VCSE organisations to have continuing opportunities to engage with other local statutory agencies and partnerships concerned with youth justice in order to achieve joined up strategies to inform and influence the PCCs’ Policing and Crime Plans. (k) The advent of Payment by Results in the CJS also poses problems for VCSE organisations working across the youth justice system. As the Ministry of Justice’s Third Sector Advisory Group (RR3) points out in its report, Competition, commissioning and the VCS, in the majority of cases only very large (private) prime contractors will be in any position to invest the necessary capital and accept the risk of contracts based on delayed payment, leaving VCS providers in a position where they can only hope to be subcontracted at a later stage.37 Some VCS sub-contractors in the DWP Work Programme have also reported that they were used as “bid candy” by primes during the procurement process after only very limited contact and superficial relationships, which subsequently did not convert into a paid role. (l) The process evaluation of the London Youth Reducing Reoffending Programme (Daedalus) found that some problems arose as a result VCSE partners not being engaged at a strategic level from the earliest stages of the programme.38 The Daedalus evaluation also notes that the PbR model creates a tension between meeting 34

35 36

37

38

Clinks. 2011. When the dust settles: The impact of a changing landscape on the Voluntary and Community Sector working to reduce reoffending working to reduce reoffending and address community safety. p.11. Online: http://www.clinks.org/assets/files/ PDFs/When%20the%20dust%20settles.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] Clinks. 2011. When the dust settles. p.9. Safer Future Communities. 2011. “One in three community safety groups unaware of 2012 elected police commissioner reforms and the ‘huge opportunities’ they offer.” Online: http://www.clinks.org/assets/files/PDFs/SFC/SFC-survey-press-release_13_12_ 11.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] L Frazer and C Hayes. 2011. Competition, commissioning and the VCS. Online: http://www.clinks.org/assets/files/PDFs/ RRTSAG/RR3%20Competition,%20Commissioning%20and%20the%20VCS.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] Ipsos Mori. 2011. Evaluation of the London Youth Reducing Reoffending Programme (Daedalus). Online: http://www.londoncjp.gov.uk/publications/ipsos_MORI_Interim_Report_Final_Version_20_04_2011_internal_use_only.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012]



set targets and providing for the needs of young people which do not fall under the scope of those targets. There is also an inherent potential for the provider to “cherry pick” and not persevere with young people who “drift” away with the Programme following their release. (m) Further debate is required on the best ways to tailor PbR to meet the needs of specific groups of young offenders, who often have complex, multiple needs and require co-ordinated support across many local agencies. Clinks and NCVYS would particularly support the development of more sophisticated outcome measures for young people in the CJS, taking into account “distance travelled” and reductions in the frequency and/or severity of offences committed. 3. The use and effectiveness of available disposals including restorative justice and custody as a last resort Restorative Justice (a) Any strategy to reduce reoffending should consider the possibilities provided by restorative justice (RJ) and mediation, which can be powerful tools for helping young people understand the consequences of their actions. RJ is increasingly and effectively used when young people are given a community sentence and there is the potential also for RJ to be used in cases where they have been sentenced to custody. The Restorative Justice Council has details of strong evidence that RJ has an impact on re-offending.39 Clinks and NCVYS member Independent Academic Research Studies (IARS), has been engaged in a three-year project entitled “Mediation and Restorative Justice in Prison Settings” (MEREPS). MEREPS’ key objective was to explore the opportunities for implementing mediation and RJ practices in prisons settings. A further aim was to test if such practices can help support victims of crime, raise offenders’ sense of responsibility, facilitate peaceful and effective dispute resolution of conflicts between prison staff and prisoners, and help reintegrate offenders back into society post-release. (b) IARS research highlights the need for joined up working between voluntary, private, community and public sector bodies in developing, delivering and evaluating restorative justice practice, within the context of secure estates for children and young people.40 It also draws attention to the fact that the vast majority of voluntary activity takes place at a local level, often addressing the needs of society’s most disadvantaged and marginalised groups. A national strategy on RJ’s implementation in the secure estate will need to take the issue of locality and local service provision seriously. As partners, providers and advocates, voluntary organisations are ideally placed to work with local authorities to achieve results for local people—improving the quality and life and quality of services in every area and encouraging strong and cohesive local communities. The IARS research into Restorative Justice also highlights its value in empowering young people to enable them to solve the problems that they face. (c) IARS research notes that many of those who had experienced RJ in prisons did not believe that its benefits could be achieved via any other practice or ethos. For instance, one practitioner said: I have been working prisons for most of my life. The anxiety and fear that young prisoners experience prevents them from hoping for something better, while their motivation to do something for others is non-existent. It is only through a process of transformation that they can genuinely be offered a chance to change. To help them deal with their realities, prisons should be more than just punishing them. The system should be about giving hope, skills…helping them change their attitudes, educating them, and yes sometimes even providing them with qualifications. I haven’t come across any practice that can do all these and transform lives other than RJ. Custodial Sentences (d) There is a clear need to develop effective alternatives for those young people for whom custody is not necessary. We supported Unicef’s statement that the detention of many children and young people after the August riots was very worrying and was a potential breach of the UN convention on the rights of a child. Article 37 of the UNCRC states that the detention of children should only happen as a last resort in criminal proceedings.41 (e) If young people do enter custody it is vital that its key objective should be the effective rehabilitation of children and young people. There is evidence that an overly offence-focused approach to children and young people has led to failures to appreciate the degree to which young people coming into contact with the CJS are children disproportionately disadvantaged. They have high levels of school failure, negative experiences of parenting, poor communication skills, and have experienced exposure to substance misuse and violence in their homes and local communities. The Prison Reform Trust (PRT) report, Punishing Disadvantage, is a recent comprehensive review of these issues and their impact on the outcomes for young people in contact with the CJS.42 39 40 41

42

http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/restorative_justice_works/ T Gavrielides. 2011. Restorative Justice and the Secure Estate: Alternatives for Young People in Custody. IARS. The Guardian. 2011. “Unicef criticises Britain for jailing children over riots”. Online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/ 09/unicef-britain-riots-children-jailed [last accessed 20.3.2012] Prison Reform Trust. 2010. Punishing Disadvantage. Online: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/ PunishingDisadvantage.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012]



(f) Evidence published by Government following the riots further supports this. The Home Office report An Overview of Recorded Crimes and Arrests Resulting from Disorder Events in August 2011 found that 64% of those young people brought before the courts lived in one of the 20 most deprived areas in the country—only 3% lived in one of the 20 least deprived areas.43 The Department for Education’s own statistics showed that 66% of the young people arrested had some provision for special educational needs and 36% were identified as having at least one fixed period exclusion from school during 2009–10.44 Transitions (g) Transitions from the secure estate back to the community and from youth custody into adult services are also important for young people—the current record of the youth justice system is poor. In a recent report on the mental health needs of children and young people in custody, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner found there was poor transition between services and, in particular, a lack of support on leaving custody and transferring to adult services.45 There appeared to be little knowledge within the secure estate of exemplars for planning transitions within non-secure services that could provide working models. Members of the Clinks/ NCVYS focus group emphasised the importance of “continuity of care” and meaningful and sustained relationships. A more holistic and coordinated approach to service provision is vital. Workforce (h) It is important that the workforce in contact with children and young people is recruited specifically to work with children. Staff should be committed to working with young people and adequately trained to deal with the challenges that this group presents. We echo concerns made by the Independent Steering Group of the Young Offenders Academy Project in their submission to the Ministry of Justice’s Strategy for the Secure Estate for Children and Young People in England and Wales. Currently many staff lack relevant training and are not primarily focused on the education and development of vulnerable and difficult children. Recruitment should focus on people with experience and expertise in working with young people and an interest in rehabilitation rather than those with a background in security and prison work. There should be ongoing workforce development to support and develop staff working with young people. (i) We support the call in The Centre for Social Justice’s recent report Rules of engagement for “mandatory specialist youth training in the immediate term for all defence lawyers and Crown Court judges appearing in youth proceedings. Training for magistrates and district judges should be developed to include comprehensive understanding of the distinct vulnerabilities of children and young people. Youth specialised training for court practitioners should be based on the excellent youth-led approach of the charity Just for Kids Law.”46 Education, training and employment (j) Young people who have been in custody typically have poorer educational outcomes than their peers— 90% of young men and 75% of young women in custody have been excluded from school and, according to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), 40% and 53% of young men and women respectively in the youth secure estate were under 14 when they last attended school.47 Education and training provision within the secure estate must provide children and young people with the same level and standard of provision that they would be entitled to outside of the secure estate, but should work also to develop, encourage and meet young people’s potential and aspirations to equip them for productive engagement in society and the workplace upon their release. (k) The importance of speech, language and communications for all children and young people in custody should be prominent throughout education, development and offending behaviour management. Safeguarding (l) We are concerned about safety and safeguarding in the youth justice system. The HM Inspectorate of Prisons report, Who’s looking out for the children?, found that more must be done to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people in police custody. It stated that too many children and young people continue to be held in police stations while waiting to appear in court after being charged.48 43

44

45

46 47

48

Home Office. 2011. An overview of recorded crimes and arrests resulting from disorder events in August 2011. Online: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/overview-disorderaug2011/overview-disorder-aug2011?view=Binary [last accessed 20.3.2012] Department for Education. 2011. 10–17 year olds brought before the courts for offences relating to the public disorder between 6th and 9th August 2011. Online: http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STA/t001042/index.shtml [last accessed 20.3.2012] Office of the Children’s Commissioner. June 2011. “I think I might have been born bad”: Emotional wellbeing and mental health of children and young people in the youth justice system. Online: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/ publications/content_503 [last accessed 20.3.2012] Centre for Social Justice. 2012. Rules of Engagement. HM Inspectorate of Prisons quoted in Prison Reform Trust. 2011. Bromley Briefing. Online: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/ Portals/0/Documents/Bromley%20Briefing%20December%202011.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] Criminal Justice Joint Inspection. 2011. Who’s looking out for the children? A joint inspection of Appropriate Adult provision and children in detention after charge. Online: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/whos-looking-out-for-the-children-20111215.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012]



(m) The 2011 Howard League report, Twisted: The Use of Force on Children in Custody reviewed recent reports and statistical information on the use of restraint in the juvenile estate. It cited almost 7,000 incidents of reported use of restraint in 2009–10, of which 257 resulted in physical injury. The OCC’s report found that there was a “tendency to focus on physical controls to manage risk”.49 It also noted that custodial and care staff lacked understanding of the impact of previous abuse on young people within the secure estate. Together, these two factors make the use of restraint in the juvenile secure estate extremely problematic. OCC and User Voice research on restraint in the secure estate, in which 89 young people were consulted, found that the use of restraint can differ greatly between institutions, and “where used and applied inappropriately [it] has profound, lasting and negative impacts on young people”.50 Resettlement (n) Clinks and NCVYS would like to see significantly more attention paid to resettlement. Poor resettlement has the potential to undermine any progress which has been made with a young person during their time in custody, as well as frustrating a young person’s good intentions upon their release. As the Youth Resettlement Framework (2004) noted, getting resettlement from custody right is vitally important. (o) Resettlement must start before a young person leaves the secure estate. More work needs to be done to ready young people in custody for the challenges facing them on release, in particular for those who are living independently. We believe that skills and knowledge relating to issues such as sustaining tenancies are as important in preventing reoffending as behavioural programmes. We are concerned that young people who are not on a full care order are not fully entitled to services which provide a seamless transition between custody and community. This means this transition can be uncoordinated, with little contact from community services and social workers whilst a young person is in custody. “Through the prison gate” services, where providers of community services also deliver services within custody, can help provide the opportunity for trusting relationships to be developed with key support workers prior to release. Youth Participation (p) The views of children and young people must influence practice in the youth justice system. Young people often feel marginalised by services that do not reflect their circumstances. The Howard League recently published a series of reports drawing on findings from a national participation programme with young people in custody and released into the community. The reports demonstrate the importance of gaining an insight into young people’s perception of themselves and others for informing services that hope to reduce reoffending. (q) Clinks recently concluded a review of service user involvement within secure settings in the CJS, including YOIs.51 The researchers interviewed eleven YOIs as part of the survey. Roughly 30% of YOIs spoke of currently running Wing Meetings and 70% had a Prisoner Consultative Committee or Prison Council. There was a considerable amount of staff buy-in to the notion that service user involvement should form part of the core business of YOIs. However, participation with young people can be tokenistic and the Clinks Review raises a number of recommendations for improving approaches to service user involvement. One of the most important aspects of effective participation is meaningful training. In its recent consultations with young people, User Voice has used a variety of methods to train the young people involved, including, one-toone support, public speaking skills and in-depth briefings. For example Centrepoint’s Parliament enables young people who have experienced homelessness, who are elected by their peers, to represent and champion their views to Centrepoint management and local and central government. (r) Clinks and NCVYS members have also emphasised the role of peer mentors for reducing reoffending. There is a growing body of evidence of the impact of peer mentoring on changing the lives of offenders in custody and in the community.52 The fact that peer mentors have faced similar challenges to the young people they are working with brings an extra dimension to the relationship. (s) A National Youth Agency report “suggests both young people and youth offending teams benefit from a more participatory approach and participatory approaches are a necessary pre-condition for effective work to bring about a reduction in (re)-offending and thus make a real impact”, though it acknowledges that more research is needed to show that participation leads to improved outcomes.53 It also notes, in relation to peer mentoring, that Baroness Neuberger’s (2009) review of volunteering across the criminal justice system said: “Former offenders and victims know like on one else what it is like to experience what they have been through. As such they are ideally placed to help influence strategy, and inform service design and delivery from sentencing to treatment”. 49 50

51

52

53

Office of the Children’s Commissioner. June 2011. “I think I might have been born bad”. User Voice & Office of the Children’s Commissioner. March 2011. Young people’s views on restraint in the secure estate. Online: http://www.uservoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Young-Peoples-Views-on-Restraint-in-the-Secure-Estate-A-User-Voicereport-for-the-OCC.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] Clinks. 2011. A review of service user involvement in prisons and probation trusts. Online: http://www.clinks.org/publications/ reports/service-user-involvement [last accessed 20.3.2012] Mentoring and Befriending Foundation. January 2011. Reducing offending: Research summary 10. Online: http://www.mandbf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Research-summary-10-reducing-offending.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] National Youth Agency. March 2011, Participation in youth justice: measuring impact and effectiveness. Online: http://www.nya.org.uk/dynamic_files/targetedsupport/ Participation%20in%20youth%20justice%20measuring%20impact%20June%202011.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012]



4. Role of the youth justice system in diverting at-risk young people away from first-time offending Prevention (a) The Centre for Social Justice’s recent report Rules of engagement notes that “More than £164 million is spent daily picking up the pieces of crime, which totals £60 billion annually. Preventative investment to tackle crime would be considerably more cost effective and immeasurably more beneficial to society. The Audit Commission calculated that if effective early intervention had been provided for just one in ten young offenders ‘annual savings in excess of £100 million could have been made’.”54 (b) We support the report’s call for preventative funds to “be used to commission services from the voluntary sector and mainstream children’s services (ie schools, CAMHS, children’s social care)”. We also welcome the suggestion that “Attention should be paid to commissioning prevention services that provide help to young people in the context of their families” though it is important that children and young people are also able to access services that cater explicitly to their needs. The report also notes that, “The voluntary sector is generally better trusted, is often more able to reach the most disadvantaged than its public and private sector counterparts, and contact with it is less likely to be stigmatising.” Young people and society (c) It is important that the youth justice system’s role in diverting young people from offending is supported by other actors. The Government has recently set out plans to be “Positive for Youth”, a new approach to cross-government policy for young people aged 13 to 19, where negative stereotypes of teenagers are rejected and young people’s needs and aspirations are the starting point. We think that the amendment to the LASPO Bill providing for a mandatory four-month detention and training order for 16 and 17 year olds convicted of aggravated knife and weapons offences is at odds with such a vision, not least because it removes the scope for decision makers to take considerations such as maturity into account. (d) We are concerned about the media portrayal of young people, especially evident in the aftermath of the riots, and supported a submission to the Leveson inquiry with recommendations to tackle potentially discriminatory practice by the print media with regards to children and young people.55 (e) It is also vitally important that relationships with police are improved. The Guardian and London School of Economics (LSE) Reading the Riots study, which interviewed 270 people who rioted in London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Nottingham, Manchester and Salford, found that widespread anger and frustration at the way police engage with communities was a significant cause of the summer riots in every major city where disorder took place.56 Stop and Search has come under particular scrutiny; the Riots Communities and Victims Panel report 5 Days in August: An interim report on the 2011 English riots found that it was cited as a major source of discontent with the police. “This concern was widely felt by young Black and Asian men who felt it was not always carried out with appropriate respect.” The report recommended that Stop and Search needs immediate attention to ensure that community support and confidence is not undermined. 5. The evidence base for preventing offending and reducing re-offending and the extent to which this informs interventions in custody and in the community (a) Some evidence of the impact of VCSE organisations and non-custodial approaches has already been outlined above. There is clearly need for further work in this area. However, as noted in the NOMS Commissioning Intentions discussion paper, the evidence around punitive approaches is also poor, and in some cases it may increase reoffending.57 (b) We have also outlined significant evidence that shows that children in the CJS are disproportionately disadvantaged, but we are concerned that there does not seem to be any concerted effort to examine how this should impact upon interventions. (c) There is evidence that many people would support alternative approaches to custody for young people. The Young Foundation, citing a survey by Smart Justice, found that two in three people think that prisons turn young offenders into “professional criminals who then just carry on committing crime and 65% think that prisons are not effective in reducing young people’s offending”. The Young Foundation note that almost eight in ten support community alternatives to custody, alongside drug treatment for young drug addicts. The same high proportion would support more use of tougher community punishments to tackle prison overcrowding and to keep track of young offenders.58 (d) It is very encouraging to see that NOMS has made reference to desistance theory in its Commissioning Intentions. Some research around desistance has shown that this process is likely to be encouraged by different 54 55 56 57

58

Centre for Social Justice. 2012. Rules of Engagement. Youth Media Agency. 2012. Submission to the Leveson Inquiry. Online: http://bit.ly/YouthLeveson3 [last accessed 20.3.2012] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/series/reading-the-riots [last accessed 20.3.2012] National Offender Management Service. 2012. Commissioning Intentions 2012–13 Discussion Document: Version 2. Online http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/noms/commissioning-intentions-2012–13.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] The Young Foundation. 2008. Escape from the Titanic: Why Britain’s criminal justice system needs systemic innovation and how innovation can help secure a justice dividend for local communities. Online: http://www.youngfoundation.org/files/images/ Escape_from_the_Titanic_0.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012]



factors for young offenders than their adult counterparts, with marked differences also among girls and boys.59 Clinks and NCVYS would encourage the coalition government to commission further academic research into desistance from crime among young people, and to use its findings to inform both commissioning decisions and the design of appropriate outcome measures. 6. The extent to which the system is able to meet the needs of all offenders, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity and mental health (a) The reduction in the use of youth custody has not impacted upon all young people equally and evidence demonstrates that young people experience their time in the secure estate differently. Participants in Clinks roundtable events have expressed some concern that the devolution of commissioning powers to the local level will lead to numerically small groups within the offender population—such as girls and BAME young people— becoming even more marginalised. BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) young offenders (b) A 2010 YJB investigation into the needs of young Black and Minority Ethnic offenders pointed to the substantial over-representation of Black and Mixed race young people in the youth justice system.60 Prison Reform Trust’s analysis also found that from 2007–08 to 2010–11 the percentage fall in the numbers of BAME children in custody was only 16% compared to 37% for white children.61 However, the YJB report remained equivocal regarding whether specific BAME-focused interventions were necessary, and recommended that this should be decided at the local level by YOT practitioners and young people accessing the YOT. c. It is apparent that that there are multiple structural disadvantages faced by young people in the criminal justice from BAME backgrounds which are more pronounced than for their white counterparts. The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee found in 2007 that high levels of school exclusion and poor educational attainment (particularly among Black boys), the overrepresentation of Black children in the care system and higher rates of lone parenting were all factors relevant to the overrepresentation of BAME young people in the CJS.62 It seems that further research is required into how attempts to tackle offending behaviour among young people from BAME backgrounds can be related to wider attempts to address patterns of social exclusion among this group. In any case, while the numbers of Black and ethnic minority young people in custody remain so disproportionate to their presence in the overall population, the question of individually-tailored interventions for this group should remain on the strategic agenda at a national level. Girls and young women (d) Current gender-specific provision within the youth estate is patchy, and the All-Parliamentary Party Group (APPG) on Girls in the CJS is a positive development which raises the profile of issues that relate differently to girls. For example, the impact on girls and women of gangs and serious youth violence—where gender roles and the nature of involvement differ markedly—has historically been poorly understood and very specific protection and safeguarding needs are needed.63 (e) The particular risk factors for vulnerable girls already known to services are highlighted starkly in the findings of a recent HMIP/Youth Justice Board Survey of 15–18 year olds in custody. This reached 95% of all the young women in the prison population at the time it was conducted. Of these 82% had been excluded from school, 56% said they had spent some time in care (compared with 27% of the comparable sample of young men), and 24% already had children of their own.64 (f) Young women in custody also have the highest rates of mental health problems, with one study reporting that over a third of 17 year old girls in YOIs had self-harmed in the previous month.65 Girls in the youth justice system are more likely than their male counterparts to suffer from eating disorders be harassed by adults, to be victims of crime themselves, experience family crises and live in poverty.66 Platform 51, a member of Clinks and NCVYS, emphasis that girls typically display different offending behaviour patterns than both boys and adult women: 59

60

61

62

63

64

65 66

F McNeill and B Weaver. 2010. Changing lives? Desistance research and offender management. Online: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/ documents/Report%202010%2003%20-%20Changing%20Lives.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] YJB. 2010. Exploring the needs of young Black and Minority Ethnic offenders and the provision of targeted interventions. Online: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/youth-justice/yjb-toolkits/disproportionality/Exploring-needs-young-bmeoffenders.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] Prison Reform Trust. 2011. Last Resort? Exploring the reduction in child imprisonment 2008–11. Online: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/lastresort.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. 2007. Quoted in YJB: Exploring the needs of young Black and Ethnic Minority Offenders [last accessed 20.3.2012] C. Firmin. 2011. “Female Voice in Violence Project. Final Report: This is it. This is my life…”, Race on the Agenda. Online: http://www.rota.org.uk/webfm_send/27 [last accessed 20.3.2012] HMIP/Youth Justice Board. 2011. Children and Young People in Custody 2010–11: An analysis of the experiences of 15–18 year olds in prison. p.31. Online: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/hmipris/thematic-reports-and-researchpublications/children-young-people-2010–11.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] Douglas and Plugge. 2007. Quoted in Centre for Mental Health, 2010, Reaching out, reaching in. Independent commission on youth crime and antisocial behaviour. 2010. Time for a fresh start. Online: http://www.youthcrimecommission.org.uk/attachments/076_FreshStart.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012]



While girls and boys experience similar factors relating to their offending, girls’ offending is more strongly associated with: low self-esteem; the influence of boys in risky situations; personal relationships, including problems with parents and family, neglect and conflict, and socio-economic indicators such as poverty, large family size, poor housing, and educational problems.67 (g) It is clear that girls have a risk profile that is different from that of boys and that requires a new and distinctive approach. The forthcoming report of the RR3 Task and Finish Group (TFG) on women in the CJS argues that girls excluded from school or in the looked after system should be a priority for preventative work, and that their transitions from care should receive more focused and intensive support. The TFG report also recommends that Government should consider a pilot to stem the flow of vulnerable girls into the CJS.68 Mental health, learning disabilities, and speech language and communication difficulties (h) Numerous studies have found that young people in the CJS are significantly more likely to have a diagnosable mental health condition than their peers who do not offend, including higher levels of depression, anxiety disorders and psychotic-like symptoms. One in five young people in custody have a learning disability and nearly three quarters of young people in these settings have been assessed as having some form of speech, language and communication need. These issues can greatly affect a young person’s ability to understand basic instructions and communications (particularly in a courtroom setting) and to engage with rehabilitative interventions.69 (i) It is therefore encouraging that the recent government response to the Office of the Children’s Commissioner’s Report into the emotional and mental health of young people in the CJS indicates a willingness to pursue a more intelligent and “joined up” approach to young offenders with complex health and learning requirements.70 It is hoped that the transfer of the commissioning of health services for the young persons’ secure estate to the National Commissioning Board will bring greater ease of access to the appropriate specialist knowledge. Proposed changes to the YJB assessment framework to include greater information sharing between local agencies and improved screening for mental health and emotional needs are also to be welcomed, though at the time of writing, a decision had yet to be made on whether this project would proceed. (j) The report of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner has also highlighted a “wide variation in the understanding and recognition…of young people’s emotional wellbeing and mental health problems” among frontline staff.71 While basic training in mental health awareness is available to youth justice practitioners, this is not mandatory and will continue to be left to the discretion of local authorities and service providers. Clinks and NCVYS support the development of a youth justice workforce that is trained specifically to work with children and young people, and would recommend that NOMS include some compulsory training in mental health and emotional issues as part of its updated Juvenile Awareness Staff Programme. March 2012

Written evidence from the Local Government Association 1. Introduction 1.1 The Local Government Association (LGA) is a voluntary membership body and our member authorities cover every part of England and Wales. Together they represent over 50 million people and spend around £113 billion a year on local services. They include county councils, metropolitan district councils, English unitary authorities, London boroughs and shire district councils, along with fire authorities, police authorities, national park authorities and passenger transport authorities. 1.2 The LGA welcomes the opportunity to provide written evidence to the Justice Select Committee’s inquiry into Youth Justice. 2. The targeting of resources, including the ability of youth offending teams and their multi-agency partners to operate effectively in the current economic climate, and early findings from the Youth Justice Pathfinder Initiatives 2.1 There will be differing situations across local areas, but the overall picture is one of significantly diminishing resources for Youth Offending Teams (YOTs). This is both in terms of central grant and contributions from local partners across the public sector, who are also facing a challenging financial environment and difficult decisions about funding allocations. 67

68 69 70

71

Platform 51, 2011. Platform 51’s evidence to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on women in the penal system inquiry on girls and the penal system. Online: http://www.youthcrimecommission.org.uk/attachments/076_FreshStart.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] RR3. 2012. Breaking the Cycle of Women’s Offending: A System Redesign (forthcoming) Centre for Mental Health. 2010. Reaching out, reaching in. Ministry of Justice. 2011. Government response to the Office of the Children’s Commissioner Report: “I think I must have been born bad”—Emotional well-being and mental health of children and young people in the youth justice system. Online: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/12207/1/gov-response-to-occ-report.pdf [last accessed 20.3.2012] Office of the Children’s Commissioner. 2010. “I think I must have been born bad”.



2.2 Targeting resources is therefore all the more important and areas will make changes based on their local priorities and particular challenges. Analysing data to ascertain the needs of client groups and how trends are changing will inform the adaptation and targeting of services. However, the scale of reduction in funding will still have an impact on YOTs’ ability to invest in prevention, as services must prioritise statutory activity to satisfy court requirements. 2.3 There is a range of planned or proposed changes that will affect the youth justice sector, including the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners, changes to the YOT grant formula, the transfer of remand budgets and the potential for use of payment by results to be more widespread. This has resulted in a high level of uncertainty that compounds the problem of reduced resources as financial and service planning to minimise the impacts are made all the more difficult. This also coincides with a time of unprecedented uncertainty in local government finance more widely. Late notification of grant settlements can also delay partners’ decisions on contributions, hampering effective service planning. 2.4 Multi-agency partnership working has always been at the heart of YOTs’ effectiveness, but these relationships will be even more crucial in times of financial austerity. The ability of YOTs to demonstrate and evidence their value to other services will be a decisive factor in securing support and contributions. 2.5 Reductions in other services, such as mental health or substance misuse programmes present an additional challenge as access is likely to become more difficult for young offenders. 2.6 The economic environment and high levels of youth unemployment may lead to rising youth crime and as a consequence, the system is likely to face the pressures of rising demand coupled with reduction in resources. 2.7 The pathfinder initiative is still in very early stages and as such, it is difficult to make definitive statements about progress and success. However, initial feedback has been positive, with one area reporting a 7% reduction in custody in the first quarter (figure not at time of writing endorsed by the Youth Justice Board). 2.8 The LGA’s submission to the committee’s previous youth justice inquiry outlined support for the proposed transfer of funding responsibility for youth remands, but highlighted the importance of an agreed, robust assessment of the full, true costs of youth remands to be transferred to council budgets, including a realistic estimate of the reductions in young people remanded to secure custody as a result of changes in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. This assessment is currently underway, alongside that for assessing the new burden of giving all young people on remand “looked after” status. Both remain imperative; the system can ill afford unfunded new burdens. 3. The use and effectiveness of available disposals, including restorative justice and custody as a last resort 3.1 The range of pre-court and post-court disposals available is largely adequate and sufficiently flexible, having delivered improvements over the last ten years. The concept that custody should be a last resort for children and young people commands widespread support, including from the LGA. However, that can only be realised if the courts and public have confidence in the alternatives, which in turn will only be convincing if they are properly resourced and can demonstrate impact. 3.2 Restorative Justice is a useful tool, but it is just one option and should not be seen a panacea. Bradford YOT has recently established new restorative justice panels to divert young people from the criminal justice system and has found it an effective way of addressing the victim’s issues. This is a very new initiative, but initial indications are positive, including that the young people involved do not get a criminal record. 3.3 It is most likely the relationship and frequency of contact that makes a difference rather than the particular disposal; the most effective interventions are where a skilled and committed practitioner builds a relationship with a young person. The success of the youth justice system over the past ten years or so comes from the range of services and specialists within the YOT which means that young people get a better service, but primarily, the fact that most orders have a strong element of supervision, and very regular contact. 3.4 Children and young people who offend fundamentally need the same things as other children and young people: a stable home, education and training, to feel valued and to have someone who cares. 4. The role of the youth justice system in diverting at-risk young people away from first-time offending 4.1 The youth justice system has a role to play in diverting at risk young people away from offending. For example, the County Durham’s fully integrated pre-court system which has shown success in diverting young people from the criminal justice system and providing value for money.72 4.2 However, YOTs do not, and should not, bear sole responsibility for diverting at risk young people from offending. Other services including youth services, children, young people and family services, neighbourhood policing and CAMHS have as much a part to play, if not more. 72

County Durham Youth Offending Service evidence to the All Party Parliamentary Group on women in the Penal System: Inquiry into girls and the penal system, January 2012



5. The evidence base for preventing offending and reducing re-offending and the extent to which this informs interventions in custody and the community 5.1 The evidence base regarding the effectiveness of different approaches, programmes and disposals remains somewhat limited and requires updating. The Ministry of Justice and/or the Youth Justice Board could usefully commission an independent and robust review of the evidence. This would be useful in helping YOTs and would be essential before introducing any changes to existing policy and practice. 5.2 There is some concern that interventions in custody are still too dominated by security requirements and not the risk and need factors of young people. 6. The governance of the youth justice system, including the removal of joint responsibility from the former Department for Children, Schools and Families 6.1 The impact of the change in governance is still somewhat unknown at present. As highlighted in our submission to the committee’s previous call for evidence, children and young people have needs which differ from those of adult offenders. Keeping a distinct focus on children in the justice system and maintaining the move away from a very top-down approach is important, whatever the governance arrangements in place nationally. Effective cross-departmental working will still be necessary to achieve this. 7. The extent to which the system is able to meet the needs of all offenders regardless of age, gender, ethnicity and mental health 7.1 The Criminal Justice System in isolation cannot meet the needs of all young people; it needs to be underpinned by effective partnership work at local level. Due to the multi agency nature of the work, the partnership working and the training of the last ten years, the system works quite well. 7.2 In areas where there are significant numbers of service users from specific groups, services work hard to address those specific needs. However, the smaller the minority or group, the more difficult it will be for a particular service to meet their needs, as setting up specific programmes becomes logistically difficult and more costly on a per capita basis. March 2012

Written evidence from Developing Initiatives Supporting Communities REDUCING THE NUMBER OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN CUSTODY In the 1980’s the LAC 84 funding stream was used to develop a number of Alternative to Custody projects around England. These projects were clearly targeted on reducing the numbers of young people in custody and in this they were singularly successful, the numbers of beds in custodial institutions were substantially reduced and YOI’s across the country were closed. I joined DISC in 1990 as the manager of the Challenge Alternative to Care and Custody Project in the North of Co. Durham. We had a small dedicated team of 4 staff running a range of interventions, restorative, cognitive behavioural and individual support and supervision. The restorative element was primarily working with adults in the local Learning Disability hospital, providing and supporting people in activities. The cognitive behavioural work was mainly undertaken in group work programmes and everyone on programme had a case manager. The project was highly successful both in reducing the need to imprison young people and in terms of impacting on reoffending. In the 1990’s reoffending in the two years after custody was running in the high 60’s about 68% if memory serves. Challenge in one its monitoring reviews achieved a 55% reoffending rate over two years after people finished the programme. This was in the context of reducing the use of custody to below 20 annually, which had previously been in the hundreds. The context to this successful project which was replicated in many parts of the country was: — Targeting those people most at risk of custody and not accepting those who might benefit but who could be dealt with in another way. — Providing effective interventions, it was key that both the programme and the staff were seen to have integrity by local sentencers. — Small caseloads (under 20) that allowed effective and intensive interventions. — Working closely with Magistrates to ensure they understood what was on offer and responding constructively to concerns or issues they had with the programme. — Having a small number of staff who consistently appeared before the bench and who came to be trusted for their work. — Encouraging magistrates to be involved in reviewing the progress of young people (there was no real legal process for this so we used “deferred sentences” to achieve this end). — Using breaches and re-offending pro-actively to up the intensity and impact of programmes.



I cannot emphasise the importance enough of working over a long period of time to increase the confidence of sentencers in the programme and its staff. Magistrates and Judges are far more likely to be influenced by the staff and managers who appear before them than by documents promoting the alleged benefits or impact of any programme. What really carries sway is that they trust the people in front of them to be honest, robust and capable of supervising young people effectively. I had no ex-forces staff (I did have some ex-pit men), it wasn’t about discipline, it was about whether we had good relationships and were straight, robust and clear with young people about our expectations and the consequences of their behaviour. We never hesitated to breach people as we knew the importance of non-attendance to the courts. We also knew that they would have a constructive discourse with us, the young person and their family about their progress, whether they would get another chance and what would be the consequences of further noncompliance. A court taking an on-going interest in the progress of young people is a very positive approach and its importance to young people who have few concerned adults in their lives should not be underestimated. The development of Youth Justice Teams saw the demise of these projects. Youth Justice Teams have made great strides in diverting young people away from the criminal justice system and criminalisation. They have however struggled to emulate the impact of the ACC projects. In part this was due to changes in social policy, sentencing guidance and the political climate surrounding imprisonment. I believe the most significant factor though was the loss of confidence of the magistrates and the Judiciary in the community sentences available to them. The clearly identifiable staff and programmes they understood and trusted were merged into the new integrated teams. The distinct expertise my team had in presenting alternatives to custody to the courts were subsumed into larger more generic teams at a time when public opinion had become more hostile to noncustodial sentences. Recent developments in W. Yorkshire demonstrate that there is much that can and should be done to get us back to the outcomes that were being achieved in the early 1990’s. This is both in terms of the reduced use of custody and reduced reoffending, both of which are outcomes likely to ensure young people don’t become long term persistent recidivists throughout their adulthood. The progress we made in Co. Durham was no easy win, it took a long term sustained effort to persuade magistrates and judges who could in no way be described as liberal in their views that we would deliver what we put on the tin. They would only take the risk of balancing the long terms gains for young people and the community against the immediate protection that comes from imprisonment if they believed we were effective in delivering the interventions on offer. April 2012

Written evidence submitted by the Big Lottery Fund Background 1. The Big Lottery Fund (BIG) is the largest Lottery distributor, responsible for distributing 40% of funds raised for “good causes” from The National Lottery. Since June 2004, BIG has awarded over £4.4 billion to projects supporting health, education, environment and charitable purposes. 90% of our money committed in 2010–11 will go directly to the voluntary and community sector (VCS). The Inquiry 2. The Justice Committee inquiry seeks to answer the following questions: — What impact, if any, have changes to national governance arrangements for youth justice had on the Youth Justice Board and youth offending teams? — What impact, if any, have changes to funding arrangements had on youth offending teams? — How can reductions in the number of young people entering the criminal justice system and being sentenced to custody be maintained most effectively within existing levels of funding? Response 3. We have limited our response to the final question of the inquiry, “How can reductions in the number of young people entering the criminal justice system and being sentenced to custody be maintained most effectively within existing levels of funding?” 4. BIG distributes funding to communities across the United Kingdom in a variety of ways, from demand led projects where VCS organisations tell us about the need they are seeking to address, through to targeted programmes where we seek to address previously unmet needs. Accordingly, we have funded a great many projects that work with young people at risk of entering the criminal justice system and being sentenced to custody. We offer the committee a number of insights from our experience as a major funder of young people: — The value of evidence-based policy. — Systematic investment in early intervention. — The role of the VCS. — The importance of engaging young people in decision making.



The value of evidence-based policy 5. Like many funders BIG are adapting to a radically altered economic outlook and must balance the competing pressures of increasing demand for our funding, a commitment to cut our operating costs to 5% while also generating greater impact from our work. We see evidence based programmes as part of the solution to that challenge. 6. Example: Realising Ambition73 is a UK-wide initiative that will invest £25 million in replicating outstanding projects that have proved their effectiveness in helping young people fulfil their potential and avoid pathways into offending. The programme will support 250,000 young people (8–14 year olds) across the UK over the lifetime of our funding. 7. While still in its infancy there is a growing evidence base74 pertaining to preventative interventions that improve children’s outcomes, harm young people, or most problematic perhaps, proven to be outcome neutral and potentially not cost effective. Realising Ambition draws explicitly upon this evidence base and, working with our delivery partners, we hope to be at the cutting edge of driving the burgeoning field of preventative practice in the UK: 7.1 To deliver this programme we have appointed a highly skilled consortium led by Catch22 (a registered charity), working with the Young Foundation, the Social Research Unit, Rathbone and Substance. 7.2 The programme will support 25 projects with grants of up to £1.5 million each for three to five years. The projects are amongst the most well evidenced projects currently operating in the United Kingdom. Each project was selected against the rigorous the standards of evidence popularised in Graham Allen MP’s recent review of early intervention. 7.3 We have made a significant investment in evaluation. For the first time BIG will invest in four large-scale experimental evaluations that offer the highest quality of evaluation evidence available. This will be complimented by cost-benefit analysis of the programme using the cutting edge Washington State Institute cost benefit tool. 7.4 Each project will receive intensive support and development assistance to sustainably replicate their approach. As the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour noted “adequate mechanisms do not yet exist for spreading best preventive practice and ‘scaling-up’ the most promising initiatives.” Realising Ambition will be at the forefront of addressing this knowledge gap. Systematic investment in early action and intervention 8. BIG’s mission is “to bring real improvements to communities, and to the lives of people most in need”. Addressing need is at the heart of everything we do and our experience as a funder demonstrates the value of investing in early intervention services that support individuals young and old before they reach crisis point. 9. The special nature of lottery funding often allows us greater flexibility than statutory services to position our investments at an earlier stage in the delivery cycle of public services. We therefore seek to drive innovation and share learning with others who may be in a better position to mainstream approaches in the long-term. 10. Example: Improving Futures:75 BIG’s Improving Futures programme, will invest up to £26 million for more joined-up and earlier support to families with multiple and complex problems, a key determinant of future offending amongst young people. 11. Our funding will support local voluntary sector organisations working in partnerships with public services to deliver wrap around support to families with multiple needs. Each partnership will receive up to £900,000 over three to five years to work with families whose eldest children are aged five to 10 years old. Around 8,000 families will benefit from the first round of awards. 12. BIG has commissioned a partnership led by Ecorys with the University of Nottingham, Parenting UK and IPSOS Mori to undertake an independent evaluation of the Improving Futures programme over five years from 2011 to 2016. This will include a longitudinal quantitative survey of 650 families and a cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate the value of investment in early intervention. The role of the VCS 13. The ability of the VCS to reach those most in need, and work with communities, who are often poorly served by mainstream provision, makes them the natural partner for BIG. In the last financial year 90% of committed funding went to the VCS. 73 74

75

Realising Ambition http://www.catch-22.org.uk/Realising-Ambition Department for Education (2011) Prevention and Reduction: A review of strategies for intervening early to prevent or reduce youth crime and anti-social behaviour. The Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour (2011) Time for a Fresh Start Improving Futures http://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/prog_improving_futures



14. Many budget holders are grappling with the implications of localism, the drive towards the personalisation of services and the need to generate community rather than state led solutions to local issues. We believe that in this context the VCS can be a powerful agent for social change, particularly with hard to reach young people, where the VCS ethos of non-judgemental services has proved particularly constructive. 15. Example: Youth in Focus76 is a £30 million investment in England that is supporting vulnerable young people through difficult changes in their lives: —

Young people leaving care—Supporting young people between the ages of 15 and 25, so they get better access to education, housing, healthcare and employment advice and services.

—

Young people leaving youth offenders’ institutions—Helping young people between the ages of 15 and 25 to develop their life skills and get better access to services, particularly young men with learning difficulties and young women.

—

Young carers—Helping young people between the ages of 10 and 25 to be heard and get better access to practical advice and services, which can support their day to day lives.

16. The role of the VCS need not be limited to funding for front-line delivery. In our experience the VCS are often uniquely placed to commission and deliver research into topical issues of social policy like youth justice. 17. Example: Young People Leaving Care. BIG recently funded The Adolescent and Children’s Trust (TACT) and the University of East Anglia to undertake a research project, which evidenced the links between young people leaving the care system and youth offending. The report, “Looked after children and Offending: Reducing Risk and Promoting Resilience” is one of the most extensive studies into crime and the care system undertaken in the UK. The importance of engaging young people in decision making 18. Finally, we would like to highlight the value of engaging young people in the design and delivery of the services they use. Effective youth participation can improve the both the quality and responsiveness of youth services and improve outcomes for young people. Genuine youth participation, to be distinguished from various forms of tokenism, can instil mutually beneficial relationships between service users and service providers. 19. In our experience hard to reach young people, like those at risk of offending and anti-social behaviour, are the least likely to engage with youth services or to be offered opportunities for constructive youth engagement. This is regrettable given that they are often amongst those most in need of support. 20. Example: The evaluation of BIGs £200 million Young People’s Fund77 programme found that BIG’s requirement for projects to actively involve young people in how services were planned and run has led to a change in culture among youth organisations. It has allowed young people to shape services that affect them, and develop new skills that will benefit them in the future. Young people reported that their active involvement often set a good example for others, facilitate knowledge sharing, inspired others to become involved in activities and raise the aspirations of young people who witness “involvement” in action. We hope the Committee find this submission useful in conducting their enquiry. BIG have made a number of investments relevant to the Justice remit including: allocating up to £11.25 million in to Social Impact Bonds,78 £6.25 million of the investment has been used to support the SIB pilot at Peterborough Prison; and, our investment in Parc Prison, Wales.79 We plan to disseminate further learning across our range of investments in this area, as the interventions and their evaluations progress. April 2012

Written evidence from the Youth Offending Service, Reading Executive Summary The following is a submission prepared on behalf of the Youth Offending Service in Reading. The areas of feedback concern the impact of the downturn in the economy on the offending potential, the new sentencing framework and its impact on the offending risk, the lack of specifically youth directed research into the assessment of what works and lengthening transition phase from youth to adult. 76 77

78 79

Youth In Focus http://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/prog_youth_focus.htm Evaluation of YPF http://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/index/evaluationandresearchuk/learning_themes/eval_young_people/eval_ ypf.htm Social Impact Bonds http://news.biglotteryfund.org.uk/pr_310810_uk_ri_big_paves_way_forward Parc Prison http://news.biglotteryfund.org.uk/pr_280312_ri_wal_break_down_those_invisible_walls_?regioncode=-uk



1. The targeting of resources, including the ability of youth offending teams and their multi-agency partners to operate effectively in the current economic climate, and early findings from the Youth Justice Pathfinder Initiatives 1(a) The current economic situation will affect the ability of partner agencies to support multi—agency working. A pressing example for youth offending Services is the cutting of prevention services. Within Youth Offending Services there will be a drive to target resources at the most risky and prolific offenders. The consequence will be a dilution of resources targeted at prevention and early-stage offenders with the risk that early stage young offenders will become more entrenched. 1(b) The cuts across related services will affect the rate of offending. In particular benefits cuts and the elimination of EMA for older school and college attendees will leave young people with fewer financial resources and lower motivation to attend further education leading to an increase in offending risk. 2. The use and effectiveness of available disposals, including restorative justice and custody as a last resort 2(a) The local view of sentencers is critical in affecting their decision making. Whilst we attempt to engage well with sentencers, there is scope for local areas to develop greater relations with their local youth and Crown Courts. It is surprising that there is not mandatory training or network events for the entire youth bench that involves the local Youth Offending Services. Attendance at Youth Bench meetings does not on its own constitute an effective local working relationship. 2(b) There is scope for specific training and awareness raising for sentencers around the role and the process of RJ as practised by YOS. We welcome the import of RJ as an expectation with Referral Orders and would welcome the provision of a specific Restorative Justice Requirement with in the YRO. 2(c) There is a worrying trend locally to impose custodial sentences principally as a response to noncompliance. Whilst we welcome the consequent focus that we have had to adopt in response to engaging young offenders effectively, and the proposed legislative and guidance changes limiting the use of custody as a disposal for breach matters, we would want to ensure that there remains workable, graduated and robust community alternatives to custody. Whilst there are a number of current options within the YRO, in reality some of these options are difficult to monitor and thereby enforce. 3. The role of the youth justice system in diverting at-risk young people away from first-time offending 3(a) We consider that there is some risk in retaining this function as something exclusively owned by Youth Offending Services. We welcome a multi-agency approach to tackling diversion from youth offending with a focus on enhancing and developing positive factors that will strengthen a young person’s resilience to avoid offending. 4. The evidence base for preventing offending and reducing re-offending and the extent to which this informs interventions in custody and the community 4(a) Despite the strides forward in terms of what works, most of this is drawn from work with adult offenders and there seems to be a dearth of relevant research into what works for young people, particularly in regard to specific interventions. We recognise the focus around the significance of resilience and positive factors and engagement processes with young people. 4(b) In particular there are few accredited programmes for delivery for young people that take into account the diverse needs, abilities and learning styles of this group. 4(c) There is a growing tension between risk management which seems to be creating a focus on accountable decision making, which at times is geared toward a conservative approach which can work against an approach that recognises the importance of building and maintaining effective engaging relationships with young offenders. 5. The governance of the youth justice system, including the removal of joint responsibility from the former Department for Children, Schools and Families 5(a) We would support a governance position that recognises that young offenders are young people first and that dealing with young offenders requires an approach that supports and strengthens the factors around them in terms of the family and education. Divorcing governance away from the DCSF makes it more likely that the wider factors relevant to young offenders are not recognised. 6. The extent to which the system is able to meet the needs of all offenders regardless of age, gender, ethnicity and mental health 6(a) We would highlight differential sentencing outcomes for different groups that have been previously documented. 6(b) The previous comments regarding the involvement of the YOS with courts may assist sentencers to appreciate more of the reality of the situations that young offenders face.



6(c) We would highlight the difficulties that young people face in transitions—particularly the group of offenders that are approaching 18. The transition to adult services in terms of Training and employment, mental health and Probation services are undertaken at a time where there is less support for them through this transition. April 2012

Written evidence from Catch 22 Justice Committee inquiry into the extent to which the youth justice system in England and Wales is fulfilling its principal aim of preventing offending by young people. Executive summary Recognition in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that the prevention of offending by children and young people is the principal aim of the youth justice system was an important step forward, as was the introduction of a target to reduce first time entrants into the criminal justice system. However, progress has been slower than it might have been, and is now being jeopardised, by a deeply embedded “silo” mentality which builds in duplication and inhibits effective collaboration between all those with a role in preventing offending by young people. Strong strategic leadership is critical to break down entrenched approaches, drive more effective joint working across sectors and disciplines and make sure resources are marshalled as effectively as possible to prevent offending by young people. Young people, their families, and society as a whole, are entitled to expect this and deserve no less. Introduction 1. Catch22 is pleased to submit evidence to the Justice Select Committee’s short enquiry on youth justice. Our evidence is based on our experience as a charity and social business committed to helping young people in tough situations, their families and communities. This involves us in working directly with over 30,000 young people through over 100 locality-based services across England and Wales, and with supporting a further 50,000 young people indirectly through our management of national programmes.80 2. A substantial proportion of our services are aimed at preventing offending by young people, through work designed to reduce the risk factors and enhance the protective factors known to affect the likelihood of offending, and to increase young people’s resilience. Most of our services are locally commissioned, giving us a strong understanding of how the youth justice system is delivered on the ground and of the different delivery models operating in different areas. The targeting of resources, including the ability of youth offending teams and their multi-agency partners to operate effectively in the current economic climate, and early findings from the Youth Justice Pathfinder initiatives 3. In common with many other service providers, we have seen a reduction in resources specifically assigned to preventing youth crime, with funding for remaining targeted work often ad hoc in nature. We expect this trend to continue, both because of public spending cutbacks and also reflecting the greater pooling of budgets. 4. We strongly support an integrated approach to the prevention of offending—one which makes the most of the contributions different partners can make to reducing risk factors, strengthening protective factors and building the resilience that helps young people to stay safe and out of trouble. Within a properly integrated approach, the absence of designated spend is not necessarily an issue. However, we do need to ensure that the prevention of offending is an explicit, shared—and long-term—priority within the integrated agenda, and that it is recognised as such in decisions on how funding such as that for troubled families, or funding going to Police and Crime Commissioners and health and well-being boards is spent. Our sense is that we are a long way from achieving this. Concerted action—and strong policy leadership—is needed to ensure that preventing youth offending remains strongly on the agenda across government departments and with those making spending decisions locally. 5. There is also an onus on all of us to make the most effective use possible of available resources through collaborative working that makes the most of the strengths of different partners. What we see on the ground is a very mixed picture. We can point to some great examples of strong collaboration leading to good outcomes, for example in Northamptonshire where Catch22 and our youth offending service colleagues work closely with the court service, the police and CPS, but this approach is far from universal. 6. Despite the stated commitment to more open public services, to date there has been slow progress in commissioning, with limited use made of contestability to ensure resources are being used effectively. We would like to see much more, and more imaginative, use of commissioning, including multi-agency joint 80

For more information on Catch22, see http://www.catch-22.org.uk/



commissioning and the introduction of purchaser/provider splits. Making greater use of funding mechanisms as an incentive (as for example with the cost of remands now being borne by local areas) can help to lever change. 7. We also need to see improved working between youth offending services and probation, providing continuity of—and age appropriate—support for young people in their transition to adulthood. In this context, we strongly support the conclusion of the Riots Communities and Victims Panel that “there is considerable scope for improving the way resources are utilised to assess and manage the needs of young adults in order to help reduce offending,” findings we hope the Select Committee will endorse. These points are covered more fully in the evidence to the Committee from the Transition to Adulthood Alliance, of which Catch22 is a member. The use and effectiveness of available disposals, including RJ and custody as a last resort 8. As things stand, our experience is that both sentencers and offenders can be confused about what a community order contains and how it will achieve the objective of preventing offending. Specifically, while they are a good disposal, we think there is a case for adjusting the circumstances where Referral Orders (ROs) can be used, retaining their use as the disposal for summary matters while providing the option of all disposals for “either way” offences. We would be glad to elaborate on this thinking if the Committee would find it helpful. The role of the youth justice system in diverting at risk young people away from first time offending 9. Clearly identifying the prevention of offending by children and young people as the principal aim of the youth justice system, and coupling this with a target to reduce first time entrants into the criminal justice system, were—and are—important markers of where our efforts should be focused. However, as outlined in earlier paragraphs, these goals can only be effectively achieved through provision of much more integrated support for children, young people and families than exists at present. We have a long way to go to break down service silos and make sure resources are used smartly to reduce first time offending. The evidence base for preventing offending and reducing reoffending and the extent to which this informs interventions in custody and the community 10. As identified in the NAO report,81 much more work is needed, both to build the evidence base for preventing offending and reducing reoffending, and to make more effective use of the evidence there is. In a recent seminar presentation on “Routes to replication” we rehearsed some of the barriers to making effective use of evidence, including: the cost of implementing evidence-based programmes; the need for thorough “site preparation” to gain buy-in from all the local partners; the political and operational pressures that can lead to programme fidelity being compromised; the long lead-in times needed to build the evidence base; the “people” challenges’ in terms of workforce development and the change management task that introducing new approaches often involves; and the strategic leadership required to cut through what might be described as “brown field site commissioning” and secure investment for the long term. 11. We are seeing important steps in the right direction, including the recent BIG Lottery investment in the Realising Ambition programme for which Catch22 is the preferred provider. A five year, £25 million programme due for launch in May, Realising Ambition will support the wider application of evidence-based approaches to steering young people aged 8–14 away from crime through investment in specific programmes, coupled with evaluation and with a brief to develop a strong, on-going learning network through which learning can be shared across the four nations and internationally. Already there has been significant learning from the development phases of this programme. We would be glad to share this with the Select Committee if the opportunity allows. Interventions to prevent offending by young people in older age categories would benefit from a similar approach. The governance of the youth justice system, including the removal of joint responsibility from the former DCSF 12. We do not see removal of joint responsibility from the former DCSF as a problem in itself. However, in its place we would like to see much greater recognition that youth justice is a cross-Government responsibility. This requires strong leadership, ensuring effective cross departmental engagement and that the youth justice agenda is embedded into developments such as troubled families, social justice and so on. Clarity is needed on whether leadership is coming from the retained Youth Justice Board or from the youth justice policy team within the Ministry of Justice. The extent to which the system is able to meet the needs of all offenders regardless of age, gender, ethnicity and mental health 13. As it stands the ability of the “system” to meet the needs of all offenders is much impeded by the fact that, in practice, it rarely functions as a “system” but rather as a collection of multi-agency silo’s, each working to their own agendas and with a narrow focus on their disciplines. A genuine “system” with silo’s broken down would serve young people’s needs much better. 81

National Audit Office, The youth justice system in England and Wales: Reducing offending by young people (2010).



14. Work is urgently needed to address the disproportionate representation of young black people within the criminal justice system. 15. We also believe there is a strong case for giving much greater attention to young people’s differing levels of maturity, as evidenced by recent developments in neuroscience, and to the implications of this for how young people are dealt with and supported in the youth justice arena. April 2012

Written evidence from Matthew Fiander I am an Independent Member of the Parole Board of England and Wales. I am coming to the end of my third term of appointment and will leave the Board on 31 August 2012 under the 10 year maximum uninterrupted service rule. I frequently chair Parole Board hearings which consider the release of prisoners including younger offenders. I also sometime sit alone when considering the release of recalled offenders. Many of these are former looked after children. Many have learning difficulties. It is my experience over 10 years that very often the Local Authorities do not discharge their duties under the Children Act which requires them to provide and update Pathway Assessments and Pathway Plans. Often the Parole Board is in a position where it has to consider whether to release a former looked after child with learning difficulties where no Pathway assessment has been conducted and there is no Pathway Plan. Sometimes the Local Authority is not involved at all in the young prisoner’s case and sometimes they decide not to carry out the assessment or they state that they will assess on release. Often the prison service and NOMS Offender Managers or Youth Justice Service staff are unaware of the obligations of Local Authorities and/or of the prisoner’s status as a former looked after child. Consequently, no-one chases up the Pathway Assessment and Plan which might easily make a significant difference to the Board’s decisions whether to release. This means that the Parole Board has to decide on parole when the follow-up arrangements are at best uncertain. I am sure that this leads to a number of individuals being retained in custody longer than would be necessary if there were proper planning. The result for the Local Authority is that the former looked after child remains in custody on the budget of the Prison Service rather than on the budget of the Local Authority. I have personally been involved in one case where the Local Authority’s failure to provide the plan until forced to do so under Parole Board directions has resulted in a delay in releasing the young prisoner. As will have been apparent from the meeting on 22 June, it appears that HCC too may be unaware of its obligations. July 2012

Written evidence from Dr Sarah Pearce 1. I am a retired consultant physician and a magistrate. I sit on the youth bench (as well as on the adult bench). I am also a member of the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committee for Durham. However I write as an individual though conversation in the retiring room suggests that many would share my views. 2. On the whole I believe magistrates do their best to take into account the youth and immaturity of offenders though very often information about their maturity is sketchy. It is known that the human brain does not really mature till age 25 (!) or so particularly with respect to consequential thinking. I am concerned that there is an entirely false idea about the magical effect of the 18th birthday—many who pass that milestone still lack maturity yet encounter the full weight of the adult court. More regard should be paid to this transitional age. 3. I usually feel the sentences we hand down from the youth bench are fair and constructive, having full regard to the welfare of the child. They take into account as much information as we get about maturity etc, and the Youth Offending Team do a very good job. However I suspect district judges get case hardened and sitting on their own might not show the understanding and social awareness that is needed. The London riots were appalling to all of us but many of us further away from them and less subject to political pressure or “group think” were horrified at the harshness of the custodial sentences handed down to young people who had been carried along thoughtlessly in the situation in which they found themselves. They showed their immaturity to the full. I believe this to have been mainly district judges who meted out swift justice that may have done huge harm in terms of future offending and the development of the young person. Furthermore they were sitting at all hours of the day and night and were probably tired and keen to get through the work as fast as possible. October 2012

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 03/2013 026308 19585