Positive Youth Justice

Children First, Offenders Second

Haines, Kevin, Case, Stephen, Kevin Haines, Stephen Case

• Publisher: Policy Press
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN:
  9781447321712
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9781447321736
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Policy
• Index: Social Sciences

This topical, accessibly written book moves beyond established critiques to outline a model of positive youth justice: Children First, Offenders Second. Already in use in Wales, the proposed model promotes child-friendly, diversionary, inclusive, engaging, promotional practice and legitimate partnership between children and adults which can serve as a blueprint for other local authorities and countries. Setting out a progressive, positive and principled model of youth justice, the book will appeal to academics, students, practitioners and policy makers seeking to improve working practices and outcomes and will make an important contribution to the debate on youth justice policy.

SIX

Progressive prevention-promotion

The previous chapter set out the principles, practices and progression of the use of diversion within the youth justice arena. We identified ambiguities surrounding the preferred objectives of diversion (for example avoiding contact with the formal youth justice system (YJS), preventing offending, restorative justice, meeting individual needs by facilitating access to youth justice and external services) and highlighted an insidious movement away from the principle of minimum necessary intervention with children and towards a contemporary form of interventionist diversion with a restricted group of children – first-time entrants (FTEs) into the YJS who have committed low-level offences. Although recent revisions to the pre-court process have sought to curb the potentially criminalising and net-widening excesses of previous diversionary practice, these developments have been primarily motivated by economic and pragmatic concerns, rather than by a move towards the more principled and (child-) appropriate treatment of children who come to the attention of the YJS in England and Wales. The chapter concluded with a detailed examination of the Bureau model of pre-court diversionary decision making, which served as a potential Children First, Offenders Second (CFOS) approach to inclusionary, engaging, legitimate and evidence-based diversion from the YJS and offending behaviour and diversion to youth justice and external support services.

In this chapter, we explore the concept of prevention as it has been understood and applied within the field of youth justice since being established as the primary duty of the YJS by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. We discuss how the ‘new youth justice’ that emerged from the Crime and Disorder Act prioritised reduction and early intervention objectives, such that much activity classed as ‘prevention’ since then has, in fact, been targeted on the reduction of existing risk (factors) and existing behaviours (for example officially recorded offending) by using risk-focused early intervention into the developmental trajectories of the same risk factors and so-called negative behaviours. We discuss how, consequently, youth justice prevention has animated the negative-facing, interventionist, net-widening tendencies of the risk factor prevention paradigm (RFPP), which is anathema to the principled and promotional objectives of CFOS. We outline a six-stage prevention-promotion constellation that situates targeted reduction and early intervention at one end and more progressive forms of universal prevention and (targeted and universal) promotion at the other. A progressive form of prevention is explored in relation to the developing youth justice policy context in Wales, detailed in two key documents: the All Wales Youth Offending Strategy (AWYOS) (which asserts that ‘prevention is better than cure’) and Youth Crime Prevention in Wales: Strategic Guidance. From there, a progressive form of ‘prevention-promotion’ (as we call it) is discussed, which has begun to promote positive behaviours and outcomes and the protective and enabling factors that may encourage them. This progression is illustrated using three examples: the Positive Youth Development movement in the US, the evaluation of the Welsh government’s Extending Entitlement strategy and the case study example of the generational development of prevention-promotion in Swansea. We conclude with a discussion of what a CFOS model of prevention-promotion could look like, drawing upon a localised example of the approach, the Positive Promotion Project, to illustrate the practical application of the model beyond aspirational theoretical frameworks and policy rhetoric that are ultimately undermined by strict adherence to the targeting of risk factors.

Prevention! Prevention. Prevention?

[I]t shall be the principal aim of the youth justice system to prevent offending (including re-offending) by children (Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 37)

The UK government rationale for giving prevention pride of place in their ‘new youth justice’ policy was the belief that many children ‘at risk’ of offending or engaged in petty first-time offending were not receiving any intervention, or were ‘getting away with it’ so needed to be held accountable for their behaviour and have their problems addressed by adult-led intervention. The mantra of ‘prevention, prevention, prevention’ was, therefore, closely allied to an associated mantra: ‘intervention, intervention, intervention’ (see Case and Haines 2009). Governmental perceptions of appropriate intervention to ‘prevent’ offending by children have cohered mainly around early intervention manifested in practice by the targeting of risk factors for further offending, premised on three central tenets: the earlier the intervention the better, targeted intervention is preferable to universal intervention and the coercive engagement of children is crucial (Blyth and Solomon 2009).

Government prevention policy in the UK since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has privileged a particular form of ‘prevention’ that is targeted on children demonstrating exposure to risk factors purportedly linked to future offending and reoffending. Prevention policy and practice has cohered around the targeting of specific populations/groups of children identified as being ‘at risk’ of offending due to their demonstrable (assessed) exposure to a range of ‘psychosocial’ risk factors for offending and other problem behaviours (for example antisocial behaviour, substance use, serious harm to self and others) located in their personal and immediate social lives (for example in the family, school, neighbourhood, lifestyle). This risk-led agenda is evident across the childcare and health fields in England and Wales more generally, with risk-focused social policy for children proliferating since the Labour government assumed power in 1997. Social policies and practices were introduced to target and reduce the problems of children allegedly ‘at risk of a range of negative behaviours and outcomes beyond the remit of the YJS (see France and Utting 2005; Turnbull and Spence 2011), including social exclusion, academic underachievement and disaffection, psychological and physical ill-health, teenage pregnancy, unemployment and poverty (compare Bridging the Gap – Social Exclusion Unit 1999; PAT 12: Young People – Social Exclusion Unit 2000; Every Child Matters – DfES 2004; Youth Matters – DfES 2005).

Targeted crime prevention policy for children in England and Wales contrasts with the prioritisation of universal social policy for children (focused on family, education and community) by approaches employed as a vehicle of crime prevention in other European countries (Allen 2009). Youth justice prevention policy and practice in England and Wales has pursued a risk-led agenda to its fullest in order to meet the dual objectives of preventing offending by children who have been identified by official agencies as on the cusp of offending and preventing reoffending by existing offenders within the YJS – both objectives being more accurately understood as reduction goals due to seeking the reduction of established risk and the reduction of existing problem behaviours (see Case and Haines 2015b). There has been a notable paucity of ‘pure’, non-targeted and universal (made available to all children) prevention policy within and outwith the formal YJS addressing children’s needs or universal rights/entitlements to support from adults and the state. Instead, the UK government has prioritised the developmental form of crime prevention, which utilises ‘interventions designed to prevent the development of criminal potential in individuals, especially targeting risk and protective factors’ (Tonry and Farrington 1995: 2–3).

Risk-focused developmental crime prevention is inherently interventionist, neglecting theoretical and empirical evidence that offending and antisocial behaviour are ‘adolescence-limited’ behaviours (Moffitt 1993) that most children will mature out of (Rutherford 2002) and despite the research evidence that this normalising, maturation hypothesis was a central conclusion of the father of the RFPP (see later in this chapter), the 500 Criminal Careers study (Glueck and Glueck 1930; see also Case and Haines 2009). As asserted by McAra and McVie (2007: 337): ‘[T]argeted early intervention strategies, far from diminishing the number of offence referrals, are likely to widen the net of potential recipients even further. Greater numbers of children will be identified as at risk and any early hearing involvement will result in constant recycling into the system.’

Academic protestations from sociologists and criminologists have held that controlling and regulatory formal intervention/system contact is iatrogenic (McAra and McVie 2007 – see Chapter Five), exacerbating offending (and a range of other negative outcomes) by children due to, among other things, assigning the label of ‘offender’ to a child, which has a detrimental effect on self-image and leads to self-stereotyping behaviour, negative societal reactions, negative social interactions and restricted life opportunities (see Becker 1963; Lemert 1972). As asserted in the Riyadh Guidelines (1990: para 5f): ‘[L]abelling a young person as deviant, delinquent or pre-delinquent often contributes to the development of a consistent pattern of undesirable behaviour … formal agencies of social control should only be utilized as a means of last resort.’

Goldson (in Blyth and Solomon 2009) takes issue with targeted early intervention in the youth justice and child welfare fields on no fewer than four fronts: theoretical (it leads to labelling), conceptual (it precipitates detrimental individualisation and responsibilisation), practical (it lacks a robust evidence base) and ethical (it is a breach of children’s rights to intervene on the basis of what they ‘might do’ rather than what they ‘have done’ – see also Case and Haines, in Goldson and Muncie 2015). However, notwithstanding these arguments and despite evidence of successful diversionary youth justice practice in the 1980s (see Chapter Five) the Labour government’s ‘new youth justice’ (Goldson 2000) was underpinned by excessive (risk-led, early) interventionism. In 2006 Prime Minister Tony Blair (31 August 2006) stated confidently that his government ‘had to intervene much earlier to prevent problems developing when children are older … If we are not prepared to predict and intervene far more early … the kids a few years down the line are going to be a menace to society and actually a threat to themselves.’

The emerging New Labour policy of prevention through early intervention was couched in the language of welfare (for example meeting children’s needs) and (targeted) prevention (for example reducing risk to the child and the public, ‘nipping crime in the bud’). As Munro (2007: 41) explains: ‘At first sight, a policy of prevention and early intervention … looks beguilingly altruistic. It has many persuasive attractions: it could reduce the amount of distress or harm experienced by the child [and] problems may be easier to tackle while they are still at a low level.’

The reality, however, was quite different. Labour’s interventionism was inherently managerialist and controlling/regulatory of children’s behaviour, widening the net cast by the YJS to encompass ever younger age groups committing a broader spectrum of youthful behaviours (notably antisocial behaviour), while eschewing ‘pure’, universal prevention and diversionary principles and practices. The ‘new youth justice’ approach to prevention through targeted early intervention is illustrated by the practice development that emerged from the Crime and Disorder Act 1998:

• Youth Inclusion Programmes (2000) – established in 2000, Youth Inclusion Programmes (YIPs) were bespoke preventative programmes for 8- to 17-year-olds living in the most socially deprived and high-crime neighbourhoods in England and Wales, with three key objectives:

• to engage with those children considered to be most at risk of offending and reoffending;

• to address the risk and protective factors identified by Onset assessments;

• to prevent and reduce offending through intervention with individuals, families and communities. (YIP Managers Guidance, YJB 2006)

Each YIP worked with children referred by local agencies (for example YOTs, schools) who had been identified by Onset⁷⁰ risk assessment as the ‘top 50’ most ‘at risk’ of offending in that neighbourhood. Through their risk focus, YIPs targeted the reduction of offending by children, along with the reduction of arrest rates, truancy and school exclusion. Once the child had been identified as ‘at risk’, YIPs offered risk-focused ‘preventive’ (reductive) provision such as education and training, sporting opportunities, mentoring, drugs interventions and detached and outreach youth work⁷¹ (see Morgan Harris Burrows 2003). Evaluation of the YIP scheme concluded that YIP staff did not clearly understand the rationale for, or potential impact of, risk-focused intervention. The evaluation further concluded that YIP projects lacked consistent, universal application, lacked an internal coherence (for example, several YIPs were merely a collection of diverse projects) and lacked adequate technical, political, institutional and practical resources (Morgan Harris Burrows 2003). However, the main recommendation of the evaluation was for further research into ‘how interventions should be best targeted, tailored and sequenced to address known risk factors’ (Morgan Harris Burrows 2003: 14). We have provided a more detailed discussion of YIPs and their associated evaluations in our book Understanding Youth Offending: Risk Factor Research, Policy and Practice (see Case and Haines 2009).

• Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (2003) – introduced in April 2003 in 13 pilot areas across England and Wales, Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs) are multi-agency panels of representatives from agencies working with children, typically the statutory agencies of police, probation, health and local authority (for example YOT, education, social services), which aim to prevent offending by 8- to 13-year-olds (or 14- to 18-year-olds in the YISP+ scheme). Children are identified as ‘at risk’ using Onset and are referred to the YISP for intervention. As explained by the independent evaluators of the pilot YISPs, the Newcastle Centre for Family Studies and Newcastle University (Walker et al 2007: ix): ‘[U]sing a matrix of the risk and protective factors which may lead children into, or protect them from, crime, the YISPs were tasked with constructing a personally tailored package of support and interventions… to facilitate the kind of provision which will prevent the child moving further towards crime.’

The evaluators identified serious gaps in available assessment data across the pilot YISPs (only 229/403 of cases (57%) contained what was rated as ‘complete’ assessment data that could be subject to evaluation), although they still felt able to proffer certain quantitative conclusions, particularly that children demonstrating high levels of assessed risk at referral were more likely to benefit from risk reductions through YISP participation, especially if they were at the older end of the 8- to 13-year-old remit. YISP practitioners interviewed by the evaluators identified a consistent risk focus underpinning referrals to the scheme, notably around risk factors related to education, neighbourhood, lifestyle and emotional/mental health. Interviews with parents of participating children asked about any improvements in the child’s behaviour that could be explained by the factors in the Onset risk domains (that is, a self-fulfilling, restricted explanatory exercise) and concluded (unsurprisingly and inevitably) certain risk-related behavioural improvements following referral to the YISP (for example improved attitudes and behaviour at home and in school, reduced offending and antisocial behaviour). However, the evaluators also concluded that these improvements did not necessarily persist once YISP involvement had ended. The evaluators made the tentative conclusion that YISP activities (for example constructive leisure programmes, skills development, training and mentoring, increased parental support) could create supportive and constructive contexts for children’s behaviour to improve within (Walker et al 2007: 23), such that the interventions:

may not themselves have had an impact on the children … [but] some of the changes in circumstances may well have been facilitated by the fact that the child had been referred to the YISP and members of the multi-agency panel had been able to commit resources to affecting change in the family’s life.

• Prolific and Other Priority Offenders Strategy (2004) – in 2004, the Youth Justice Board (YJB) published the Prolific and Other Priority Offenders Strategy, otherwise known as POPOS (YJB 2004). The strategy was divided into three strands: Prevent and Deter (to prevent offending and to prevent the escalation of offending), Catch and Convict (to actively seek to arrest and sentence offenders) and Rehabilitate and Resettle (to intervene in the lives of offenders to reduce reoffending). In their guidance to YOTs, the YJB explained the purpose of the Prevent and Deter element of the strategy (replaced in 2009 by the Deter Young Offenders (DYO) management framework – see Chapter Five) as the use of prevention ‘to tackle the risk factors that may drive their [children’s] offending behaviour’, but through an early intervention approach of ‘identifying and targeting those most at risk of offending with appropriate intervention programmes’ (YJB 2004: 7). A review of the first five years of POPOS recommended that local authority areas should review their Prevent and Deter programmes in the light of their recent conversion to DYO schemes (including recommendations to fully utilise the risk-based Scaled Approach as the key vehicle to identify children for the scheme) and that areas should maximise the engagement of local children’s trusts an...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables and Figures
• About the Authors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: A Children First, Offenders Second philosophy of positive youth justice
• One: Positive youth justice: introducing Children First, Offenders Second
• Two: What is Children First, Offenders Second?
• Three: The context of Children First, Offenders Second positive youth justice: evolution through devolution
• Four: Putting children first in the youth justice system
• Five: Progressive diversion
• Six: Progressive prevention-promotion
• Seven: Conclusion
• References