Recent developments

Young offenders

We note in the 2nd edition – and also at 8.1.2 below - the concern that the number of children receiving a reprimand, final warning or conviction for an indictable offence increased by 19 per cent in the period 2003–6 and suggested that this increase was the result of target-led police practices: this explanation would appear to be a valid one: see NACRO (2010) ‘Some Facts about children and young people who offend - 2008’ Youth Crime Briefing, April. London, NACRO.

Latest statistics also show that the assumption by the public that offending by young people is rising is erroneous. The 2011 Statistics Bulletin from the YJB and the Ministry of Justice notes that ‘There were 198,449 proven offences committed by young people aged 10-17 which resulted in a disposal in 2009/10. This is a decrease of 19% from 2008/09 and 33% from 2006/07’. See: Youth Justice Board/Ministry of Justice (2011) Youth Justice Statistics 2009/10 England and Wales Statistics Bulletin. London, YJB, pp. 2-3.
Recent research confirms what we already know – that those who offend often have serious personal, family and economic problems in their childhood. For example, Berman’s analysis shows that:

• 47% of male sentenced prisoners and 50% of female sentenced prisoners had run away from home as a child. This compares to 10% of the general population.
• Over 25% of prisoners had been taken into care as a child compared to 2% of the population.

See Berman, G. (2011) Prison Population Statistics, SN/SG/4334. London, House of Commons Library, p.16. 

Youth conditional caution

This (YCC) was introduced by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (ss 48–50 and Schedule 9 as a new pre-court disposal for use with 10–17-year-olds. The provision came into force early in 2009 but implementation has been phased. It has been piloted since early 2010 with 16-17 year olds in a small number of areas. A young person who had previously been given a reprimand and/or warning is eligible for a YCC providing the offence is admitted and that the offence is listed in Annex A to the guidance although those existing two options could be bypassed. See The Director's Guidance on Youth Conditional Cautions (2010) at http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/directors_guidance/youth_conditional_cautions.html. Non-compliance by the young offender with the conditions stipulated in the YCC will result in prosecution for the original offence.

8.1.2. Offending by minors pp 239-241

In the book we note that the following publication by NACRO and the Howard League gives detailed reasons why the apparent upward trend in some youth crime statistics is not reflective of actual increases in offending. NACRO, Some facts about children and young people who offend – 2006, Youth Crime Briefing, London: NACRO, March 2008

The Briefing points out that current diversionary strategies appear to have differentially affected the rates of reprimands, warnings and prosecutions for boys and girls: the recent decrease in the use of informal responses by the police and the CPS has had a greater impact on the prosecution rate of girls and young women than on boys and young men. The reason for the decrease in informal sanction – and so rise in the use of prosecution - is perhaps the result of new police targets to increase 'sanction detections'.

Other research would also suggest that 'net widening' – when new diversionary measures bring more young offenders into the system rather than divert form any state action - has had a greater impact on girls and young women, with girls in an ethnic minority being the most vulnerable to the new final warning scheme (Fox, D., Dhami, M. and Mantle, G. (2006) 'Restorative Final Warnings: Policy and Practice' Howard Journal Vol 45(2) 129-140 at p. 137).

The following publication has also focused on girls: YJB (2009) Girls and Offending - Patterns, Perceptions and Interventions (YJB: London)

“Convicted young women … have no previous convictions, have had contact with social services during their childhood and generally experience dysfunctional family relationships. They have often been abused, witnessed violence in the family context and experienced significant bereavement and loss. Their family members are often involved in criminal activity and use alcohol and drugs.

These young women either live with only one birth parent or neither. They are usually enrolled in mainstream school, but are not attending education. They are bored, mix with delinquent peers and participate in reckless activities. They drink and smoke, but do not use drugs.

Convicted girls are often emotionally affected by both past and current circumstances; they may self-harm, but probably will not have attempted suicide. They have below average levels of self esteem, are aggressive, angry, impulsive and easily led.” (from the Summary)

MORI Youth Survey 2008
The MORI Youth Survey reveals that the overall proportion of young people reporting that they had committed an offence in the previous 12 months has declined compared with previous surveys. The survey, which was reinstated following the Home Office’s decision to stop its Offending, Crime and Justice Survey, provides self-reported data by young people in mainstream education and pupil referral units on their experiences of crime.

Youth Justice Annual Workload data 2007/08
The Youth Justice Annual Workload Data 2007/08 can be accessed via the YJB website. The data is drawn from figures submitted to the YJB by all youth offending teams and gives a picture of the scale and type of work that YOTs are tackling. See: www.yjb.gov.uk/publications/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=441&eP=

Moon, D. and Walker, A. (eds) (2009)  Perceptions of crime and anti-social behaviour: Findings from the 2008/09 British Crime Survey Supplementary Volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2008/09,17/09. 

Chapter 2 Perceptions of anti-social behaviour Jenny Parfrement-Hopkins and Philip Hall :

“Young people and ASB
Of the seven strands that make up the overall ASB measure, teenagers hanging around has remained one of the most widely perceived problems for a number of years. The 2008/09 figures showed that 30 per cent of people perceived teenagers hanging around to be a problem in their local area. This was stable compared with 2007/08.

However, this measure has come under some criticism since teenagers hanging around (in itself) is not an anti-social behaviour. In order to address this argument, in 2008/09 people who thought teenagers hanging around was a problem were asked if they believed the young people were behaving in an anti-social manner; the majority, 81 per cent of those perceiving a problem, believed that they were (suggesting that most people were interpreting the initial question in the way it was intended). Thus, while 30 per cent of people overall perceived teenagers hanging around to be a problem, 22 per cent perceived teenagers hanging around to be a problem and identified specific acts of ASB associated with teenagers.

A range of different behaviours associated with this problem were reported. Some of the most commonly reported problems included: swearing or using bad language; being loud, noisy or rowdy; just being a general nuisance; or littering (mentioned by 80%, 78%, 72%, and 63% respectively of those perceiving the teenagers’ behaviour to be anti-social; Table 2.2).

However, some of the behaviours reported may be considered more serious, including:
• drinking alcohol (77% of those perceiving teenagers’ behaviour to be anti-social);
• being abusive or harassing people (50%);
• fighting with each other (38%);
• taking drugs (37%);
• intimidating or threatening people (36%);
• physically assaulting people (11%); and
• carrying knives (12%)”

8.1.3. Sentencing powers pp 241-246

SGC (June 2009) Overarching principles – Sentencing youth, London: SGC.

This is a Consultation Guideline on the principles which apply when courts sentence young offenders. The guideline is set in the context of new laws for sentencing young people, notably the introduction of the youth rehabilitation order.

The Commons Justice Select Committee responded to the above new guidance on overarching principles in sentencing youths under 18 by the Sentencing Guidelines Council on 13 August 2009

See: http://news.parliament.uk/2009/08/report-on-sentencing-guidelines-council-and-youth-sentences/ where the following statement can be found:

‘The Committee considers that the “Overarching principles—sentencing youths” is a crucial sentencing guideline, saying it “fills a critical gap, setting out for youth courts the basis upon which they should sentence offenders under the age of 18”—guidance which the youth courts have not previously had.
The Committee’s response highlights the key issues raised in evidence to it, for example, the apparent inconsistency in approaches to sentencing children, and a varied understanding among sentencers of the concept that custody should only ever be a “sentence of last resort” for young people.’

Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith, Chairman of the Committee, said:
"Having an overarching set of principles should improve the consistency and effectiveness of youth sentencing, but the guidance needs to be clear and sound, and the aims of the guidance need to be clear. And the guidance will not work if suitable community based sentences are not available in the court's area. We were particularly concerned at the lack of programmes for girls, and the lack of suitable accommodation in some areas for boys carrying out community sentences.

"We know that custody does not work to reduce reoffending, and that it does not have a deterrent effect on young people, because their crimes are usually opportunistic and impulsive, so it is vital that effective alternatives are available.

"The automatic use of custody to deal with young people who fail to comply with the terms of their sentence or Rehabilitation Order can be the wrong approach—these are mainly young people with chaotic lifestyles and no parental support, and active intervention to make sure they turn up can be a much better investment of taxpayers' money than automatic and expensive custody."

The Committee also stressed that courts should have access to information about a young offender's mental health, learning difficulties and communication problems to enable the most appropriate sentence to be imposed.

The Committee says the evidence it took on this draft sentencing guideline highlighted key areas in relation to youth justice deserving of further scrutiny, such as the use of remand and provisions for offenders aged 18-24, and it will consider how to pursue these areas further in its work.’

8.4.2 ‘Re-moralisation’ pp 258-260

Torbjørn Skarðhamar (2009) ‘Family Dissolution and Children's Criminal Careers’ European Journal of Criminology, Vol. 6, No. 3, 203-223.
This study examines the relationship between family dissolution and children's crimes. The study uses a total population sample of a Norwegian birth cohort born in 1982 ( N = 49,975) and follows them through the crime statistics from ages 10 to 22 years, applying growth curve modelling. Both married and cohabiting parents are considered. There is a large and significant effect from family dissolution that persists after controlling for important economic confounders, even though these also show a high and significant effect. This suggests that, although some of the effect of parental break-up is explained by socioeconomic conditions, there also seems to be an independent and strong effect of family dissolution.

8.5.2. A national system pp 263-4

In 2009 the YJB issued several managerialist planning and strategy documents, including the following:
YJB (2009) Youth Justice Planning Framework for England and Wales, 2009-2010.

The website gave the following information about this document on 28.5.09: “The YJB, in partnership with YOTs, has developed new outcome-focused youth justice planning frameworks for England and Wales. They are based on self-assessment and improvement planning and YJB validation and risk-led support. The frameworks for both England and Wales consolidate all previous YJB strategic plan and improvement plan requests such as EPQA. From the start of 2008/09, the YJB will expect all 157 YOTs to submit only one plan annually.” YJB (June 2009) Corporate and Business Plan 2009/10, London: YJB.

The Foreword to this document notes that the coming year is critical:

“The coming year
The next 12 months will be critical for the YJB, with implementation of the Scaled Approach and the new Youth Rehabilitation Order scheduled for the end of November. Many opportunities have been generated by our joint sponsorship arrangements with the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), and also from publication of the Youth Crime Action Plan in July 2008. For example, challenges to reducing youth offending are now being actively addressed by all relevant Government departments, seeking ways to improve access to essential mainstream and specialist services for young offenders. At the local level, youth justice has been embedded within the new local performance arrangements. We are facilitating the development of resettlement consortia, where local authorities work with custodial providers in a given catchment area, through pilots in London, the North West of England and the South West of England.”

In October 2010 the Cabinet Office Secretary, Francis Maude, published a list of quangos that would be abolished with the stated government aim of saving money and improving the accountability of ministers. The Youth Justice Board (YJB) was on that list. The YJB was set up a non-departmental public body funded by, and reporting to, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education and Skills. The YJB will be absorbed into the Ministry of Justice (see http://www.government-news.co.uk/youth-justice-board/201010/statement-on-the-future-of-the-yjb.asp# .

Commentary on this decision has been divided in relation to the success or otherwise of the YJB since it was set up by the 1998 Act and is also divided as to whether its abolition will make the further reduction of the use of detention for children and young people more or less likely.

Powers in clause 31 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill which would have allowed the Secretary of State to intervene in Youth Offending Teams perceived to be failing were removed during consideration of amendments made by the Lords. The Bill was, therefore, enacted without such a provision.

8.5.3. Reprimands and warnings pp264-266

Restorative Justice Working Group

A Discussion Paper published by the Commission on English Prisons Today (see www.prisoncommission.org.uk) comments that, currently, policy on restorative justice is 'all talk and no action' as the excerpt below indicates.

'At the start of the twenty first century three quarters of all cautions in the Thames Valley were carried out by way of a restorative caution or conference, with nine per cent of all cautions involving a face-to-face meeting with a victim. Today, there appears to be less restorative activity. The Oxfordshire YOT deals with about 1,000 orders a year but they deliver some form of restorative intervention (face to face or indirect) in less than 1 in 10 cases overall. During the first 6 months of 2007, at total of 77 cases involved some form of direct or indirect contact between the young offender and their victim. Of these, 27 cases involved the two parties meeting face to face in a restorative meeting, and 50 were cases where there was indirect communication between the offender and their victims without a face to face meeting (e.g. transmission of a written, video or verbal apology, indirect mediation through a third party, etc). Youth Justice Board statistics for 2005-06 similarly show that only around 13 per cent of victims of youth crime participate in a direct restorative justice process' (p 3).

Restorative Justice Disposals (YRDs: Pilot Scheme)
The pilot taking place 2008-9 operates as below (information taken from YJB web-site accessed 20.5.09):

• Only young people between the ages of 10-17 who have not previously received a Reprimand, Final Warning, Caution or other disposal are eligible.
• A young person may receive only one YRD.
• Serious crimes, such as weapons, sexual and drug offences, are not eligible for a YRD.
• The victim and offender both need to agree to participate in the YRD, which will be facilitated by an authorised officer trained in restorative justice techniques.
• The process must be resolved within a reasonable time – on the street or shortly after.
• The process involves a meeting between the victim and offender, an apology and may include additional action to right the wrong caused.
• The YOT is informed after the YRD is issued providing an opportunity to identify early risk factors and get the right agencies to step in with appropriate support to a young person.

The YRD is recorded locally and not on the Police Nation Computer. The pilot will end in 2009 with a subsequent evaluation to consider the potential of introducing it nationally. See: www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/practitioners/CourtsAndOrders/Disposals/YouthRestorativeDisposal/

8.6.2. Stability and continuity pp 268-9

The Coalition Government’s Green Paper, Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders, was published by the Ministry of Justice in December 2010. The paper sets out the Government’s proposed reforms to the criminal justice system. In some respects there is nothing new in the proposals relating to youth justice. The Consultation Paper proposes to place more emphasis on diversion from offending, and also on reparation to victims, and increasing freedom and flexibility for local bodies. Greater use will be made of parenting orders and of restorative justice. It is intended to make out-of-court disposals simpler and to give police and prosecutors more discretion to deal with youth crime before leaving court and to give more emphasis on restorative justice. To address the problem of inconsistency in dealing with breaches of community orders, it is proposed that youth offending teams establish new compliance panels to review cases. The use of payment by results for youth justice to encourage or ‘incentivise’ local areas to reduce youth offending is also being considered.  Pilots will be set up to explore how local areas can share in financial savings and risks of custody. It is also suggests making it possible that young offenders convicted of less serious offences would be able to ‘wipe the slate clean’ on reaching adulthood to make it easier for them to find work and reintegrate.

Jon Hales, Camilla Nevill, Steve Pudney and Sarah Tipping (2009) Longitudinal analysis of the Offending, Crime and Justice Survey 2003–06,
Home Office Research Report 19

“Key implications

• This report presents longitudinal analysis of self reported data on offending, drug use and anti-social behaviour amongst young people (initially aged 10 to 25) from the Offending, Crime and Justice Survey, which was carried out annually between 2003 and 2006.
• The analysis identifies a small group of young people described here as ‘prolific offenders’, who accounted for a disproportionate number of offences, including serious offences. …
• Looking at the transitions that young people make into and out of offending behaviour, the analysis suggests that anti-social behaviour can be a precursor to offending for some young people. In some cases, early intervention that targets young people involved in anti-social behaviour may help to reduce the likelihood of offending later on.
• In order to intervene effectively at an early stage to prevent offending, awareness of risk factors is important to target interventions at those most likely to go on to offend. The analysis reported here highlights family, peer group and school factors as important influences on the behaviour trajectories of young people during their teenage years.”

Available via http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/whatsnew1.html