Implementing the evidence on young adult neuromaturation

Introduction

Those aged 18–24 years comprise around a third of offenders found guilty or cautioned for indictable offences, of those starting a community order or suspended sentence order, and of those sentenced to custody each year (Ministry of Justice, 2014). This calls into question the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions intended to prevent future offending amongst this population, and suggests an alternative approach is needed.

The criminal justice system of England and Wales embodies a long-established distinction between ‘young offenders’, aged between 10 and 18 years at the time of their offence, and offenders aged 18 years and above, who are dealt with as ‘adults’. At the heart of this distinction is the assumption that, at age 18, an individual can be held fully responsible for their actions. In recent years, this assumption has been challenged by emerging understandings of young adult neuromaturation. In this article we summarise this research, and demonstrate how its implications for the development of more effective interventions have informed the response of two community rehabilitation companies (CRCs).

Neuromaturation among young adults: the case for a differential response

Early adulthood is increasingly recognised as a dynamic phase of neuromaturation due to the occurrence of key processes of brain development associated with emotional maturity – that is, the ability to interpret and regulate emotions. It is now understood that key regions of the brain ‘may not be fully developed until halfway through the third decade of life’ (Johnson et al., 2009: 216). This includes the prefrontal cortex, which is among the last regions of the brain to develop, and is associated with a range of functions, including impulse control and the analysis of the consequences of particular courses of action. Furthermore, consistent regulation of emotions is associated with the establishment of robust connections between the prefrontal cortex – which is crucial to cognitive processes – and the limbic regions – where emotional processing occurs. However, current evidence indicates that this connectivity might not occur until the mid-20 s (Johnson et al., 2009: 217–218).

These processes of neuromaturation are such that young adults may differ from older adults in key aspects of emotional functioning, and therefore in regard to their psychosocial maturity and related behaviour in particular contexts or situations. For example, young adults appear more susceptible to risk-taking in ‘stressful, exciting, and emotionally arousing circumstances’ (Casey et al., 2008: 11), with inhibitory control and rational decision-making more prone to being ‘overcome under emotional circumstances’ (Spear, 2013: 7). Differences are similarly identified in relation to the ability to evaluate the consequences of different courses of action before making a decision to act, including by limiting impulsivity and controlling aggressive responses (Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996).

Young adults are also more prone to emphasising short-term rewards over longer-term outcomes (Crone and Dahl, 2012). In particular, the adolescent may weigh the benefits of behaviour that achieves social status or peer acceptance more strongly than they do the knowledge that the decision may have negative consequences, including a criminal record that might affect future prospects (Joshi and Fast, 2013). Similarly, young adults are found to be less likely to consider the perspectives of others before taking a decision to act (Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996).

Of course, none of these attributes are uniform. Studies exploring the development of these factors have repeatedly concluded that levels of maturity continue to vary greatly between individuals during young adulthood, in part due to the influence of gender and exposure to identified ‘risk factors’ (Edwards, 2009). However, broadly speaking, those who are between 18 and 21 years old are more similar to those aged under 18 than they are to those aged 25 (Monahan et al., 2009). Bryan-Hancock and Casey (2011: 74) therefore conclude that ‘young people do not all mature at the same time, but do so within the ages surrounding the arbitrary cut-off for adult court at 18’.

Emerging evidence from the developmental sciences therefore supports the principle of differential responses to young adults in the criminal justice system (Cauffman and Steinberg, 2000; Colwell et al., 2005). This evidence has been recognised within recent reforms in England and Wales, where the notion of maturity has now emerged in official discourse. Since March 2011, all new guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales (2011: 5) have stated that consideration should be given to ‘age and/or lack of maturity where it affects the responsibility of the offender’ as one of the ‘factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation’. In addition, since 2013, an assessment of maturity also forms part of the public interest test of the Crown Prosecution Service (2013).

Whilst this does not suggest leniency in sentencing young adults, it does imply a need to recognise and respond to the particular needs of young adults, and in doing so directly influence offending behaviour. Within the framework of emotional and psychosocial maturation, attributes such as empathy, impulsivity and consequential thinking can be seen as part of a developmental process, rather than as fixed personality traits. This implies the potential to intervene so as to facilitate their development (Casey et al., 2008; Crone and Dahl, 2012; Johnson et al., 2009). Whilst typically seen as indicative of deficits or vulnerabilities, recognition of active processes of neuromaturation in young adulthood instead highlight important modifiable behavioural traits that, if addressed, provide opportunities to significantly reduce the risk of future offending. It is against this backdrop of emerging research evidence and changing policy landscape that the Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland (DLNR) and Staffordshire and West Midlands (SWM) CRCs have developed a bespoke young adult pathway.

The development of a consistent, service-wide young adults’ ‘pathway’

In January 2015, shortly after the Reducing Reoffending Partnership ¹ was awarded the contracts for the DLNR and SWM areas, local partners collaboratively engaged in the redesign of interventions and approaches. This included the development of a bespoke strategy for young adults, prioritised in recognition that local service use and outcomes mirrored those at a national level. To achieve the desired step-change in practice and impact on outcomes, the scope of the strategy was intentionally ambitious, looking beyond discreet interventions to an organisation-wide approach, able to provide a distinct ‘pathway’ through probation services for young adults.

The development of the pathway was informed by practice experience in the locality. Historically, as CRCs and within their preceding probation trusts (PTs), provision in both areas had primarily adopted an ‘all adult’ approach to service delivery, with limited attention paid to issues of maturity or the need to tailor support to the distinct needs of young adults. The creation of the CRCs enabled previous isolated examples of promising practice to be shared and to inform a consistent, service-wide approach. This included the Leicestershire and Rutland PT multi-agency Young Adults Project (YAP!, 2014), established by the local Police and Crime Commissioner in 2013 to make system-wide changes to improve services and outcomes for young adult offenders. There was similar previous experience of designing and delivering young adult services in SWM, with West Midlands PT having delivered one of the three original ‘young adult pilots’ commissioned by the Transition to Adulthood Alliance, which contributed to a 9% reconviction rate among young adults engaged in the projects, significantly lower than the contemporary national average of 46% (Sturrock, 2012).

To ensure consistent reference to the evidence base, the learning from local experience was combined with research from the developmental sciences and translated into a set of six principles able to govern the design of the young adults’ pathway. These principles state that the approach to working with young adults must, at all times adhere to the following.

Understand young adulthood as a dynamic developmental stage in life. A successful transition to adulthood correlates with desistance from offending. However, becoming an adult is an individually experienced process and not an event. Assessments will take into account individual maturity, and intervention will actively seek to support the achievement of the developmental and social milestones of adulthood.

The development of the pathway was deliberately collaborative, achieved through a series of workshops involving operational managers and practitioners, with regular feedback from young adults.

From principles to practice: realising the strategy

Our strategy was launched in Autumn 2015, together with the Clinks Effective Approaches with Young Adults guide (Livingstone et al., 2015) and contains the following key elements.

The continued journey to a consistent all-service response

Whilst significant progress has already been made, there remain considerable challenges. The pathway is premised on the importance of all interventions and engagement being tailored to young adults. Piecemeal or isolated changes are likely to negatively influence young adults’ experience of our services, which in turn will limit impact. This process is necessarily on-going.

It is recognised that the effectiveness of the designed pathway will require a significant shift in thinking and practice and an on-going commitment to continuously developing the pathway. With this in mind, a cross-CRC young adult strategy has been compiled and a joint steering group, chaired by a senior officer, will have responsibility for its implementation and evaluation. Attempts to change practice will be supported by a comprehensive learning and development programme for practitioners and managers, ranging from awareness-raising to specialist seminars focusing on key areas, such as childhood trauma and brain injury.

There is also a growing awareness of the need to establish new collaborative partnerships that will enable us to address specific needs of particular groups of young adults. For example, with the support of the Care Leavers Association, we are developing our resettlement and community-based services to improve outcomes for care leavers.

The development of the specialist pathway is clearly in its infancy. Whilst an evaluation framework, which includes measuring levels of engagement, impact on reoffending rates and service user feedback, has been included in the design, the impact of the new strategy on desistance will not be understood for some time. However, given the close alignment with research evidence, we approach its implementation with confidence in its potential positive impact on young adult offenders in our region.