Abstract
Budgetary Pressures Render Current Support of Prevention Work by Youth Offending Teams in England and Wales ‘Precarious’
Reducing the number of children who receive a formal criminal justice disposal for the first time is one of three high-level indicators by which performance of the youth justice system in England and Wales is assessed. (The other two indicators are reducing reoffending and reducing the custodial population.) As indicated in Table 1, there has been a substantial decline in ‘first time entrants’ (FTEs) − of 80 per cent − since the government introduced a target in this regard in 2008, formally adopting a measure previously established by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. The fall followed a period of sustained growth, but has been considerably sharper than the earlier increase.
First time entrants to the youth justice system: 2000/2001 to 2012/2013.
FTEs account for a sizeable proportion of the child population that comes into contact with the youth justice system. The recent trend has accordingly been associated with a corresponding decline in the overall volume of children receiving a formal disposal for an indictable offence of almost 65 per cent.
As the number of children subject to formal youth justice intervention has fallen, the statutory workload of youth offending teams (YOTs) has inevitably shrunk. Moreover, this decrease has coincided with increased budgetary pressures on youth justice services. Total funding for YOTs fell from £341 million in 2007/2008 to £322 million in 2012/2013, a reduction of just over 5 per cent. Staffing has declined more rapidly than these figures might suggest: Excluding sessional workers and volunteers, the number of people working in YOTs during 2012 was 53 per cent lower than that in 2008.
Against this background, a recent report, published by the New Economics Foundation, notes that while various forms of preventive activity on the part of YOTs might be considered central to successful diversion from the youth justice system, as required by the FTE target, there is no statutory requirement to engage in this area of work. Nonetheless, a survey of YOTs found that non-statutory intervention accounted for an increasing proportion of their work as the number of statutory cases declined: The most common response was that between 20 and 40 per cent of staff input was allocated to preventive activities or diversionary work. However, given the uncertain status of prevention, practice is highly variable across England and Wales, with inconsistency being reinforced by government policy that emphasises the importance of ‘localism’.
Over 15 per cent of YOTs reported that more than 60 per cent of staff time was spent on prevention. A small majority reported having dedicated teams or caseworkers who were responsible for non-statutory work. Such arrangements were consistent with the widespread perception, prevalent even in localities where such specialist provision did not exist, that prevention was different in significant respects from more traditional, statutory, intervention. The most commonly cited distinction was the voluntary nature of diversionary work, necessitating an approach that seeks to engage the young person in order to ensure participation, rather than relying on a court mandate. At the other end of the scale, a relatively small number of YOTs focused exclusively on statutory work with all prevention services being located with other agencies.
A further significant difference noted between prevention and statutory work was that the child population for whom the former might be considered appropriate was not readily demarcated by being subject to a criminal justice disposal. This requirement for identification, in the absence of any centralised guidance, tended towards further inconsistency in terms of the group of children who might be offered intervention. YOTs reported that they were heavily reliant on referrals from external agencies, most commonly the police, although education, mental health, children’s services and community safety partnerships were also identified as potential referrers. In some areas, YOTs engaged in outreach work in ‘high-risk’ neighbourhoods or attempted to target specific individuals − such as siblings of those already subject to statutory intervention − deemed to be ‘at risk’ of offending. Assessment processes also varied: While Onset, a tool developed by the Youth Justice Board specifically for preventive work, was most commonly used for this purpose, some YOTs relied upon the Common Assessment Framework or had developed their own assessments. Others reported that they used the primary youth justice assessment tool, Asset, although this was developed to assess the risk of reoffending of adjudicated offenders.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the nature and range of diversionary interventions also varied. YOTs most frequently cited involvement in ‘triage’ and Youth Justice Liaison and Diversion schemes, but these were umbrella terms, largely defined by their function rather than descriptive of the activities undertaken. Where the latter were described, they ranged from positive activities to parenting interventions, substance misuse treatment and reparation as a response to involvement in anti-social behaviour. Concern was expressed at the capacity of mainstream services to deal with some of the presenting problems, leading to a perception that prevention work was insufficiently prioritised outside of the YOT.
A significant minority of respondents − 40 per cent − considered that it was difficult to provide evidence of the impact of their non-statutory interventions. While others were more confident, approaching 90 per cent thought that it would be useful to know more about how prevention was delivered elsewhere.
The report concludes that greater clarity is required in relation to YOTs’ responsibilities for prevention and diversion if the work is to be developed and sustained. Reduced budgets were universally noted as a concern − both for YOTs themselves and for partner agencies − but the lack of stability associated with changes in funding streams was seen to pose difficulties in addition to the absolute reduction in resources. While YOTs were confident that their prevention work was effective, there remained little direct evidence of effectiveness of specific diversionary programmes. In combination, these three factors made ‘the future of this work uncertain, threaten[ed] … collaborative working relationships’ and rendered precarious the continued support of YOTs for diversionary interventions.
On 17 November 2014, at the annual Youth Justice Convention in November 2014, Andrew Selous, Minister with responsibility for youth justice, announced a ‘stocktake’ of YOTs, in recognition that different models of delivery have developed. Although the terms are, at the time of writing, yet to be formalised, the remit of YOTs in preventive work may be considered as part of that process. In answer to a parliamentary question, on 1 December 2014, the Minister indicated that YOTs
‘play a key part in the youth justice system and the Government recognises their valuable contribution to the recent successes of the system. We want to improve our understanding of how YOTs are operating and how they have evolved in light of the changing circumstances surrounding the delivery of local youth justice services. … [It] will establish a clearer picture of how the YOT model is operating nationwide’. Figures for first time entrants and youth offending team budgets are given in Youth Justice Statistics 2012/13, published by the Youth Justice Board and Ministry of Justice, and available at: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/youth-justice-statistics Youth Diversion: YOT Survey Briefing, by Ben Estep, is published by the New Economics Foundation and is available at: www.justiceinnovation.org/sites/default/files/attached/YOT%20Survey%20Briefing.pdf. Andrew Selous’ answer appears at Hansard, House of Commons, 1 December 2014, column 216229.
Seventeen-Year-Olds in Police Custody in England and Wales to Acquire the Same Rights as Other Children
Prior to recent legislative changes, a historical legal anomaly had prevented 17-year-olds in police custody from enjoying the same rights as other, younger, children in two respects. Until October 2013, when the Home Secretary amended the relevant Code of Practice in response to a decision of the High Court, the requirement that children in police detention should be accompanied by an appropriate adult did not apply to those aged 17 years. However, the government stopped short of amending the primary legislation that would have extended the full range of safeguards that apply to younger children. In particular, 17-year-olds continued to be exempted from the requirement that a child refused bail by the police should be transferred to local authority accommodation pending his or her appearance at court under section 38(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Following the death of 17-year-old Kesia Leatherbarrow in December 2013, after her detention in police custody for 3 days and 2 nights for offences of possession of cannabis and criminal damage, Just for Kids Law, the charity that had mounted the earlier legal challenge in respect of appropriate adults, initiated further judicial review proceedings as regards the application of section 38. An online petition launched by Kesia’s mother calling for an end to the treatment of 17-year-olds in police custody as adults attracted the support of 30,000 signatories in less than a week.
An amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill designed to rectify the anomaly was resisted by the government at Committee and Report stages. However, on 10 November 2014, following an internal review of the matter, Lord Faulks accepted the amendment on behalf of the government, noting that Kesia was the third 17-year-old child to die after encounters with the police since 2010. He confirmed that
The effect of the amendment would be that 17 year-olds, as with 12 to 16 year-old children, must be transferred to suitable local authority accommodation overnight [when charged and denied bail]. The amendment has the full backing of the police. The Home Office will work with forces to help them prepare for implementation.
While the government’s concession is clearly welcome, concerns remain as to the extent to which the statutory provisions that require transfer of children from police detention to local authority accommodation, irrespective of their age, are complied with in any event. A report published in 2013 by the National Association for Youth Justice noted that the government does not routinely collate information on the number of children refused bail by the police after charge or what happens to them in the period prior to court. (The most recent data published by the Youth Justice Board relate to 2000.) An analysis of the eight inspection reports of police custody facilities published between January and September 2013 found that three made no mention of the issue of transfer, suggesting that inspectors did not regard compliance with this legislative requirement as meriting attention. Four dealt with requests by the police for local authority secure accommodation, without any reference to the fact that there is a statutory presumption of transfer to non-secure accommodation. In each case, police had indicated that they were not aware of such requests ever having led to transfer. Just one report referred to the potential for police to secure a transfer to non-secure local authority accommodation. In this instance too, it was apparent that children remained at the police station as a matter of course rather than being transferred:
‘Some custody officers tried to avoid keeping children and young people in cells overnight … Custody staff said that they would try to contact social services to arrange accommodation for young people who could not be bailed but were always informed that none was available’. Details of the High Court case that determined that 17-year-olds in police custody should be entitled to an appropriate adult are given in Youth Justice News, Youth Justice 13(2): 171–173 Background information on Kesia Leatherbarrow’s case is given in Victory for bereaved parents as ‘Kesia’s law’ is passed by the House of Lords, Just for Kids Law press release, 11 November 2014, available at: www.justforkidslaw.org/news-events/victory-for-bereaved-parents-as-kesias-law-is-passed-by-the-house-of-lords Lord Faulks’ comments appear at Hansard, House of Lords, 10 November 2014, column 19 Detaining children at the police station: a failure to comply with legislation is published by the National Association for Youth Justice and is available at: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/files_mf/detainingchildrenatthepolicestation.pdf.
Boys in Young Offender Institutions in England and Wales More Likely to Report Having an Emotional or Mental Health Problem in 2012/2013 than Their Counterparts in the Previous Year and Less Likely to Feel Safe on Their First Night in Custody
The number of children in custody in England and Wales has fallen sharply in the recent period. In October 2014, the under-18 population of the secure estate for children and young people stood at 1044, the lowest at any point since April 2000 when data were first collated in the current form. There is, however, some evidence that as numbers have decreased, those who continue to be incarcerated have become increasingly vulnerable and their experience while in detention has deteriorated in important respects.
Since 2008, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons has published an annual report summarising the results of surveys conducted with children held in young offender institutions (YOIs) which accommodate boys aged 15–17 years and account for 70 per cent of the total custodial population. In 2013, this was supplemented by a separate report detailing findings for children detained in secure training centres (STCs), privately managed custodial establishments that accommodate younger and more vulnerable boys and girls. In 2014, for the first time, the results from both sets of surveys − covering the period 2013/2014 − have been combined into a single publication. (No equivalent data are collected for the relatively small number of children − a total of 93 in October 2014 − who are subject to penal custody and accommodated in secure children’s homes.)
The report registers some improvements over the previous year for children in STCs. For instance, there was a significant rise in the proportion of respondents indicating that a member of staff had spoken to them about how they were feeling on their first night in custody from 57 per cent in 2012/2013 to 74 per cent in 2013/2014. Over the same period, there were increases in the proportion who reported being encouraged to take part in activities outside of education hours − from 84 to 94 per cent − and who thought that they had been able to learn skills for jobs that they might like to do in the future − from 64 to 74 per cent. Nonetheless, one in five children in STCs said that they had felt unsafe at some time while in custody. There was considerable variation between the four centres: at Hassockfield just 1 in 10 children had ever felt unsafe; at Rainsbrook, the equivalent figure was close to 1 in 3.
A larger proportion of children in YOIs − 29 per cent − reported having felt unsafe while in the institution. Indeed, where comparison was possible, indicators for the latter group of children were consistently less positive. Children in YOIs were, for instance, less likely to report having a sentence plan (51% against 64%), less likely to consider that staff treated them with respect (68% against 93%) and less likely to think that they had done anything in custody that would reduce their chances of reoffending on release (47% and 68%). In interpreting the findings, it should be borne in mind, however, that children in STCs are on average younger than those in YOIs: 37 per cent of those in the former establishment were aged under 16 years compared with just 4 per cent of those in the latter. This inevitably limits the extent to which meaningful comparisons can be drawn. Moreover, STCs are significantly smaller, accommodating between 58 and 80 children by comparison with YOIs which hold between 48 and 252 boys. The former units also have a correspondingly larger staff-to-child ratio: ranging from two staff members to seven children; to two staff members to five children. By comparison, the average ratio in YOIs is one staff member to 12 children.
There were nonetheless also some improvements for children in YOIs compared to 12 months earlier; for instance, children were more likely to report being able to have a shower every day and have access to a daily telephone call. Overall, however, the findings tended to confirm the perception that the reduction in the custodial population has been associated with an increase in negative experiences of incarceration. Only 5 out of 44 responses which registered a significant difference over the previous year suggested improvement. There were, for instance, increases in reported physical restraint, use of segregation and ‘gang problems’ and reductions in the proportion of children who considered that staff treated them with respect or who thought that their caseworker had helped prepare them for release. Whereas in 2012/2013, 82 per cent of children had felt safe on their first night, that had fallen to 78 per cent in 2013/2014. A comparison of selected responses is shown in Table 2.
Selected survey responses of children in young offender institutions: 2012/2013 and 2013/2014.
The report also confirms that the custodial population had become more vulnerable over the course of the year on some of the indicators for which data were collected. The proportion of children with a background of local authority care and those who were themselves parents had remained constant, at 33 and 11 per cent, respectively. However, 23 per cent of respondents in 2013/2014 reported having any emotional or mental health problems, a rise of 4 percentage points over the previous year. There was also an increase in the proportion of children who considered themselves to have a disability, from 16 to 19 per cent.
Figures for the population of the secure estate for children and young people are given in Youth custody report October 2014, published by the Ministry of Justice and available at: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/youth-custody-data Children in custody 2013–14: an analysis of 12–18-year-olds’ perceptions of their experience in secure training centres and young offender institutions, by Rachel Prime, is published by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and the Youth Justice Board and is available at: www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/inspections/children-in-custody-2013-14/.
Long-Term Costs of Incarcerating Children in the United States May Cost as Much as US$21.47 Billion
The number of cases in the juvenile court for criminal law violations in the United States has been falling since 1997, and by 2011 was 34 per cent lower than in the earlier year. The decline appears to be continuing, with a fall of 8 per cent in caseloads in the most recent year. From a long-term perspective, however, the number of children processed remains high. In 2011, the juvenile court handled 1,236,200 cases, 7 per cent more than in 1985.
Trends in the use of custody have followed a similar trajectory, declining by 30 per cent since 1997 through to 2011. Despite the fall, the use of detention is still 7 per cent above that in 1985. It is generally acknowledged that custody is an expensive response to youth crime, and a report by the Justice Policy Institute, published in December 2014, attempts to calculate the cost to the American economy of the present level of youth incarceration.
Data collected from 46 states and jurisdictions in 2013 that, in combination, account for 93 per cent of committed youth in out-of-home placements indicated that the average annual cost of confinement was US$148,767 per head. There was, however, considerable variation, ranging from US$46,662 in Louisiana to US$352,663 in New York, explained in part by the extent of rehabilitative services provided, whether custodial facilities are privatised or non-unionised, and economies of scale. In New York for instance, a decline in the use of incarceration had led to spare capacity in custodial institutions and a higher unit outlay.
The report argues that such figures represent only the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of ‘the total long-term costs of youth confinement’ when other factors are taken into consideration. Research on the impact of incarceration on reoffending is limited and inconclusive. Two studies reviewed for the report showed no statistically significant relationship between youth custody and increased recidivism, but a third − with a longer follow-up period − found that ‘incarceration as a juvenile increases the probability of recidivism as an adult by 22–26 percentage points’. Taking into account the impact on victims and costs to the taxpayer of processing such ‘additional’ offences through the criminal justice system, the total budgetary consequences of increased recidivism in 2011 were estimated as between zero − where no increase in recidivism is assumed − and £7.034 billion on the assumption of a 26 per cent rise.
But incarceration has additional financial consequences. From the perspective of the individual child, educational and employment opportunities are reduced, with a corresponding loss of potential tax revenue to the state and increase in the outlay of public assistance. Failure to achieve high school graduation is associated with long-term health problem, and the custodial experience can have adverse lifelong implications for mental ill health leading to higher medical costs. The report estimates that the combined economic loss of such consequences in 2011 might be as high as US$13.07 billion.
Evidence also suggests that young people in custody may be subject to physical and sexual violence while in detention. One study conducted in 2012, for instance, found that almost one in five ‘adjudicated youth in confinement’ had been subject to non-consensual sexual acts by other young people or staff. Each of those individuals might potentially be considered entitled to compensation that, based on an estimate of US$314,650 per young person assaulted, would cost the state up to US$1.37 billion per annum.
The authors of the report conclude that each year the United States incurs between US$7.9 and US$21.47 billion in long-term costs for the confinement of young people over and above the placement costs of immediate detention. The estimates are shown in Table 3. Moreover, these figures are based on the use of incarceration in 2011, which as indicated above is substantially below that earlier in the decade. Without that decline, the estimates would have been considerably higher:
Without the drop in confinement experienced between 2001 and 2011, the total collateral costs of confinement for the nation would have been nearly doubled in 2011: The estimated collateral costs in 2011 would have been between US$14.35 billion and US$39.01 billion … Figures for trends in juvenile court caseloads and use of confinements are given in Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Court, by Sarah Hockenberry and Charles Puzzanchera, published by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and available at: www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248409.pdf Sticker Shock: calculating the full price tag for youth incarceration is published by the Justice Policy Institute and is available at: www.justicepolicy.org/research/8477.
Estimated annual long-term costs of incarceration over and above the immediate costs of detention: 2011 (billion dollars).
Evaluation of Indigenous Youth Justice Programmes in Australia Finds That, Despite a Lack of Quantitative Data to Demonstrate Reduced Recidivism, Interventions Were ‘Valuable’ and Addressed Intended Aims
Indigenous young people are significantly over-represented in the Australian youth justice system and ‘are 24 times more likely than non-Indigenous young people to be in detention’. Recent policy initiatives have suggested that diversionary mechanisms may be necessary to address that disproportionality. The Indigenous Justice Programs Evaluation project was designed to assess the effectiveness of four interventions at different points along the youth justice continuum: prevention to address known risk factors; early intervention with targeted individuals; diversion from courtp; and work to reduce reoffending for those already in contact with correctional services. Given these differences, the four programmes could not be compared directly. Despite some areas of commonality that allowed a consistent approach to the study, the evaluation accordingly offers an independent, but linked, assessment of each intervention.
The Aboriginal Power Cup is a sports-based programme that aims to engage indigenous children in positive activities and promote engagement with school in South Australia implemented through a nine-a-side football tournament and supporting educational workshops. The evaluation found that while the programme only reached a small proportion of eligible indigenous students, numbers were growing. Qualitative data from students, teachers and parents reported improved engagement in education and self-confidence and improvements in teamwork and leadership skills. However, limitations of baseline and post-intervention quantitative data precluded confirmation of those qualitative findings.
Woorabinda Early Intervention Panel Coordination Service, based in an indigenous community in Queensland, brings together government and community representatives at multi-agency panel meetings to develop co-ordinated responses to children aged 10–17 years considered to be at risk of offending. Analysis of case files and surveys completed by young people and families post-programme completion suggested improved behaviour and family relations. The evaluation team also considered that the implementation of the panel’s work demonstrated signs of ‘excellent practice’. However, while across the region as a whole, the number of offences committed by children fell by more than 80 per cent, between 2006 and 2012, the opposite trajectory was demonstrated by programme participants who accounted for just 3 per cent of total offending in the former year but more than a third in 2012. These trends were considered by the evaluators to be ‘worrying’, but a lack of baseline data for offending of children prior to referral to the panel precluded any further analysis.
The Tiwi Islands Youth Diversion and Development Unit (TIYDDU) based in Wurrumiyanga, a largely indigenous community, offers first time offenders below the age of 18 years the opportunity to avoid a criminal conviction unless the offence is ‘serious’ by agreeing to conditions such as attending a youth justice conference, apologising to the victim of the crime, attending school and undertaking reparation. In interviews and documentary evidence, children referred to the programme demonstrated remorse and a desire to avoid future offending. Just 20 per cent of programme participants had contact with the police for alleged offending in the 12-month period following referral, considerably lower than might be expected in the absence of intervention given recidivism levels for indigenous young people more generally. The evaluation attributed the success of the programme partly to the avoidance of a conviction and to the provision of ‘culturally competent’ care and supports that demonstrated respect for Tiwi values.
Aggression Replacement Training (ART) within Queensland is offered to indigenous and non-indigenous children in youth detention centres as a groupwork intervention, for an hour each week over a 10-week period. It is designed to teach alternative ways of reacting to situations likely to provoke anger. While the programme is not targeted specifically at the indigenous population, the latter is over-represented given the make-up of the incarcerated cohort. All young people interviewed contended that participation in the programme had led to positive behavioural change, such as improved conflict resolution, relaxation skills and management of anger. Participants also showed a reduction in aggressive thoughts and behaviours as measured through ‘before and after’ questionnaires. However, the reduction in non-indigenous children was significantly greater, suggesting the need for further research on the efficacy of ART for indigenous young people.
The authors of the evaluation conclude that there was qualitative evidence of beneficial outcomes for each of the programmes, but with the exception of TIYDDU, these findings were not supported by quantitative data demonstrating a positive impact on recidivism. While accepting that reoffending can be a problematic measure and that other indicators, such as improved life skills, education, health and wellbeing, may be more meaningful, the authors identify a need for improved data collection to inform evaluation if programmes wish to demonstrate efficacy.
Indigenous youth justice programs evaluation, by Jacqueline Stewart, Bodean Hedwards, Kelly Richards, Matthew Willis and Daryl Higgins, is published by the Australian Institute of Criminology and is available at: www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/special/1-20/005.html.
Over-representation of Black and Minority Ethnic Children in Custody in England and Wales Rises
As noted in a previous item, there has been a sharp decline in incarcerated child population in recent years. That fall has, however, been accompanied by an increase in the representation of children from a minority ethnic background.
The over-representation of Black and minority ethnic (BME) children within the youth justice system is well established. According to the 2011 census data, just over 18 per cent of the 10–17 population of England and Wales is of BME origin. By contrast, in 2010/2011, BME children accounted for almost 30 per cent of under-18 prisoners. According to information given by Andrew Selous, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, in answer to a Parliamentary question on 28 November 2014, that proportion has increased in the interim period to 38 per cent. Accordingly, while there have been absolute reductions in the number of incarcerated BME children, this group does not appear to have benefited to the same extent as their White counterparts from the fall in the use of custody.
As indicated in Table 4, the rise has been particularly pronounced for Black children and those of mixed heritage.
Figures for the ethnic breakdown of the 10–17 population of England and Wales derive from the 2011 Census and are available at: www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/dc2101ew The Minister’s answer is given at Hansard, House of Commons, 28 November 2014, column 215983.
Under-18 population of the secure estate by ethnic background: 2010/2011 to 2013/2014.
BME: Black and minority ethnic.