Editorial

Citation

Smithson, T.B.a.H. (2014), "Editorial", Safer Communities, Vol. 13 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/SC-06-2014-0009

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Safer Communities, Volume 13, Issue 3

The backdrop for this youth justice themed edition of Safer Communities is a rapidly changing landscape within which responses to children who break the law are framed. While the election of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government has stamped its mark on that landscape, the origins of some of the more significant shifts can be traced to well before the 2010 election: continuity with the previous administration is, it might be argued, more pronounced than innovation associated with the new regime. In this context, a further feature merits attention. Although youth justice policy in England and Wales is frequently � and with some justification � criticised for being insufficiently distinct from that which applies to the adult criminal justice system, the trajectories of the two systems have manifested considerable differences and, in some respect, substantial divergence in the recent period.

Perhaps the most striking feature of the current conjuncture is the dramatic decline in detected youth crime. Between 2008 and 2012, the number of children receiving a substantive disposal for an indictable offence fell by 67 per cent; the equivalent reduction for adults was a much more modest 30 per cent (Ministry of Justice, 2013). The extent of the decrease in the former population is primarily a function of a decline in the number of children who come to the attention of the criminal justice system for the first time � so called first time entrants (FTEs) � which fell between 2008/2009 and 2012/2013 by 72 per cent. Over the same period, the number of adult FTEs contracted by just 32 per cent (Ministry of Justice/Youth Justice Board, 2014).

While the trends shown in the data are consistent with the reductions in crime recorded in the Crime Survey for England and Wales, the extent of the fall in youth offending is significantly larger than would be anticipated on that basis and have been achieved largely as a consequence of shifts in government policy. In 2008, the then Labour administration introduced a new performance indicator to reduce the number of FTEs to the youth justice system (HM Government, 2008). There was no equivalent target for adults. In 2010, the incoming coalition government � in one indication of political continuity � adopted the measure as one of three high level outcomes for the youth justice system (Ministry of Justice, 2010) ensuring an uninterrupted persistence of the trend in spite of the change of administration.

The target was supported by a marked political shift that encouraged diversion. Whereas the �new youth justice� (Goldson, 2000), whose contours were established by New Labour's 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, was predicated on a commitment to early intervention through the formal mechanisms of the youth justice system to �nip offending in the bud� (Home Office, 1997), the FTE target depended on a rediscovery of diversion (Pitts and Bateman, 2010). A range of new pre-court options � including community resolutions and triage � that, unlike reprimands and warnings, did not involve the imposition of a criminal record, were given official endorsement. �No formal action� whose use had been discouraged by the new youth justice made something of a comeback. Police discretion was further encouraged by the abolition, through the 2012 Legal Aid, Punishment and Sentencing of Offenders Act, of the rigid final warning scheme which had mandated prosecution for a third offence at the latest, however, trivial the legal infraction and irrespective of the circumstances of the child. Its replacement by a system of youth cautioning that permits a pre-court disposal at any stage in the child's offending career where such a course is considered appropriate by the police, provides a further stimulus to the avoidance of prosecution of juveniles. It also stands in marked contrast to the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, currently before Parliament, that will significantly reduce the scope for cautioning of adults.

The fall in FTEs has been accompanied by an equally sharp decline in youth custody. In 2008, the United Nations Committee was critical of the UK for the number of children deprived of their liberty through youth justice proceedings, regarding it as a breach of the requirement in the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child that custody should be used only as a last resort. In the period since, however, the population of the secure estate for children and young people has contracted substantially, from 3,004 in March 2008 to 1,177 in March 2014, a fall of just over 60 per cent (Ministry of Justice, 2014a). By contrast, over the same period, the adult prison population has risen by 6 per cent, from 80,316 to 85,252 (Howard League for Penal Reform, 2014). Significantly, perhaps, reducing the numbers of children subject to imprisonment is also one of the high level targets for youth justice that has no adult equivalent.

Each of the above trends is arguably a manifestation of a depoliticisation of youth justice that has allowed a diversion of resources away from formal processing of, what is often, relatively minor youth misbehaviour in a period of austerity (Smith, 2014). Certainly, central oversight of interventions for children in trouble with the law has been significantly scaled back and the managerialist functions of the Youth Justice Board (YJB) for England and Wales have been deliberately curtailed (Ministry of Justice, 2014b). Such developments contrast with those in the adult justice system, where the government has recreated a national probation service to facilitate implementation of its programme of privatisation. While practice with children in trouble was, following implementation of the new youth justice, characterised by deprofessionalisation and standardised, process driven, intervention (Pitts, 2004), the introduction of new, less rigid, national standards, �lighter touch� inspections, reduced reporting requirements and strengths based � rather than risk focused � assessments offer the prospect of increased professional discretion and autonomy (Smith, 2014).

Each of the papers in this issue of Safer Communities sheds further light on these developments. Stephen Case considers the changing role of the Youth Justice Board from a Welsh perspective. While England and Wales forms a single jurisdiction for criminal justice purposes, the situation is complicated in the case of youth justice by the fact that many of the services that contribute to provision for children who offend are devolved responsibilities to the Welsh government. This has enabled the development of a youth justice in Wales with a different policy focus that demands that young people who break the law should be treated as �children first and offenders second� (Welsh Assembly Government and Youth Justice Board, 2004). The YJB has, accordingly, sought to �reconcile social policy and youth justice tensions in Wales� though the creation of YJB Cymru to mediate �YJB policy in the Welsh context � advising its parent body on Welsh matters and monitoring, supporting and advising YOTs in Wales�.

Case's paper reports on a research project designed to explore of the changing role of YJB Cymru in this partially devolved context. He argues that the function of the organisation is best described in terms of critical engagement, ensuring on the one hand that UK government youth justice policy acknowledges the nuances associated with the different configuration and priorities in Wales, while on the other maintaining a relationship with Welsh National Government that, while �not without difficulties�, aims to bridge the divide between policy and delivery with a focus on improving outcomes for Welsh children in the youth justice system. The relationship between YJB Cymru and Welsh youth offending teams (YOTs) demonstrates a slightly different variety of critical engagement, predicated on the building of �trust, respect and openness�. The erosion of managerial priorities has facilitated the development of �a nascent culture shift in Wales away from (historical) small pockets of more limited engagement (even resistance and scepticism in some cases) and towards more widespread and embedded reflective, critical engagement and open, reciprocal communication between YJB Cymru and YOTs�.

The focus of Sean Creaney's contribution is the changed practice environment. In two complementary papers, he offers some reflections on the potential for the development of a more child friendly (and effective) practice given the increased opportunities for the exercise of professional autonomy and discretion. In the first paper, he reviews the evidence that argues in favour of a �relationship-based practice� in preference to one that prioritises programme content and mechanisms of delivery derived from a �what works� paradigm. Drawing on the �desistance literature�, he proposes that the road to effective rehabilitation lies �beyond what works� and needs to focus on nurturing young people's strengths and fostering their resilience rather than addressing deficits in the form of identified risk factors. Traditional social work qualities of empathy, warmth and genuineness are critical for building effective relationships with young people in order to work with them rather than imposing interventions on them. The potential for the realignment of professional engagement with children in trouble implied by such an approach is enhanced to the extent that managerialist priorities recede.

Creaney concludes his paper by reflecting that �evidence� is typically amassed and interpreted by adult policy makers and practitioners and that the child's perspective, as to what would work for him or her, is often regarded as a secondary consideration. This insight underpins his companion piece that documents the benefits to youth justice practice of adopting participatory strategies in work with children in conflict with the law. He documents the rise in importance in listening to the voice of the child in other areas of service delivery and contrasts this with the presumption that frequently informs youth justice practice that children who offend have somehow forfeited the right to be heard. Indeed, within the risk factor paradigm, that has dominated YOT assessment and supervision planning for more than a decade, the space for the child's view is inevitably constrained. The role of the practitioner is, on this model, to act as �technician�, uncovering � in a supposedly objective manner � the deficits within the child and his or her immediate environment that require professional intervention. The service user perspective, unless it accords with the professional assessment, is inevitably of limited value.

Creaney contrasts such an approach with one that gives precedence to inclusive and participatory strategies where affording children their right to be heard in a systematic fashion is a precondition of effective work to improve longer term outcomes. He acknowledges that the criminal justice context poses considerable challenges, not least of which is that youth justice interventions have traditionally been constructed � at least in part � as punishment for wrongdoing. Enforcement rather than adapting to the wishes of the child has, as a consequence, become a default position. But the weakening of centrally mandated processes, and increased discretion in relation to ensuring (or encouraging) compliance, in combination with a growing consensus as to the potential of desistance focused work as an alternative to risk management, provides opportunities for a professional practice that seeks to resolve such tensions. Safer Communities would welcome further contributions that address the challenges and contradictions that beset practice in the rapidly changing context.

The progressive trajectory of recent developments in youth justice gives rise to a further tension that is explored in Tim Bateman's paper. As noted above, the icy political climate that required a punitive and interventionist stance vis-�-vis children who came to the attention of criminal justice agencies has to a significant extent thawed, as manifested in the targets to reduce custody and FTEs. The Coalition has shown itself willing to �preside over a youth justice system in which the number of 10 and 11 year-olds receiving a formal disposal has fallen by more than two thirds in just two years�, demonstrating a policy continuity with the previous administration. Yet, in the face of an emerging consensus, and a strong evidence base, that supports a considerable rise in the age of criminal responsibility, there is a nonetheless a resolute political reluctance to contemplate an upward movement in the point at which criminal liability is attributed.

The paper notes what Goldson (2009) has called the problem of �intra-jurisdictional integrity� wherein children are regarded as competent to form criminal intent from the age of ten years while, in other domains, safeguards remain in place until � and adult type rights are attained at � a much higher age. Bateman argues that the paradox can be resolved by acknowledging that children who break the law are constructed differently to those who merit the protections generally associated with childhood. Their actions have, in effect, defined them as part of the �underclass� whose members lie outside mainstream society; since such individuals �do not play by the rules�, they are not entitled to the same considerations that apply to more deserving citizens.

He concludes that such ideas have �become firmly embedded in the political consciousness�, unquestioningly accepted by both main political parties as a major determinant of criminal justice policy. A �common sense� commitment to a low age of criminal responsibility � even in a broader climate of diversion and decarceration � is one consequence of such ideological underpinnings. To the extent that the arguments adduced help to explain the paradox outlined in the paper, they might also be thought to suggest that the recent developments in youth justice described earlier in this editorial may be vulnerable to political backlash. Safer Communities welcomes contributions that further this debate.

Tim Bateman and Hannah Smithson

References

Goldson, B. (2000), The New Youth Justice, Russell House publishing, Lyme Regis

Goldson, B. (2009), �Difficult to understand or defend: a reasoned case for raising the age of criminal responsibility�, Howard Journal for Criminal Justice, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 514-21

HM Government (2008), Youth Crime Action Plan, Home Office, London

Home Office (1997), No More Excuses: A New Approach to Tackling Crime in England and Wales, CM 3809 HMSO, London

Howard League for Penal Reform (2014), �Weekly prison watch�, Howard League, London, available at: www.howardleague.org/weekly-prison-watch/ (accessed 30 May 2014)

Ministry of Justice (2010), Breaking the Cycle Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders, CM 7972 The Stationery Office, London

Ministry of Justice (2013), Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly Update to December 2012 � England and Wales, Ministry of Justice, London

Ministry of Justice (2014a), Monthly Youth Custody Report � March 2014, Ministry of Justice, London

Ministry of Justice (2014b), Triennial Review of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales: Combined Report on Stages One and Two, Ministry of Justice, London

Ministry of Justice/Youth Justice Board (2014), Youth Justice Statistics 2012/13 � England and Wales, Ministry of Justice, London

Pitts, J. (2004), �Korrectional Karaoke: new labour and the zombification of youth justice�, Youth Justice, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 3-16

Pitts, J. and Bateman, T. (2010), �New labour and youth justice: what works or what's counted�, in Ayre, P. and Preston-Shoot, M. (Eds), Children's Services at the Crossroads, Russell House Publishing, Lyme Regis, pp. 52-63

Smith, R. (2014), Youth Justice: Ideas, Policy, Practice, 3rd ed., Routledge, Abingdon

Welsh Assembly Government and Youth Justice Board (2004), All Wales Youth Offending Strategy, Youth Justice Board, London