Community Reparation for Young Offenders

Perceptions, Policy and Practice

N. Pamment

• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781349680078, 9781137400451
• eBook ISBN: 9781137400468
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Community reparation for young offenders involves unpaid work such as painting and decorating, litter picking and graffiti removal. Whilst remaining a major part of the youth justice landscape, concern has been raised about the poor quality of workplace provision.

In this book, Nicholas Pamment provides the first fully researched examination of community reparation. He establishes the most comprehensive model for the effective delivery of unpaid work, demonstrating the importance of 'meaningful' work placements which facilitate key employability skills, associated with reductions in re-offending. Drawing upon empirical evidence and the experience of offenders, he warns against a formulaic approach to workplace allocation, where there is an over-reliance on low cost menial tasks. His timely study concludes that more attention needs to be paid to the rehabilitative potential of community reparation, requiring the commitment and dedication of service providers.

1

Introduction

Abstract: Community reparation for young offenders involves unpaid work such as painting and decorating, graffiti removal and shrub clearance. Often described as the juvenile version of adult community service, the disposal is available for offenders aged 10–17 and it remains a major part of the youth justice landscape within England and Wales. This chapter begins by defining the notion of ‘reparation’, before outlining the central argument of the book. The chapter then goes on to summarise the overall methodological approach, providing a justification for the primary research methods utilised within this study. It concludes by providing a concise overview of the proceeding chapter structure.

Pamment, Nicholas. Community Reparation for Young Offenders: Perceptions, Policy and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. DOI: 10.1057/9781137400468.0005.

Defining community reparation

Reparation has been defined as ‘any action taken by the offender to repair the harm s/he has caused’ (Wilcox and Hoyle, 2004, p. 17). There are two types of reparation. ‘Direct’ reparation occurs when an offender has some level of contact with the victim and this can be through a letter of apology, face-to-face meeting or practical activity. Alternatively, community reparation, which is the focus of this book, involves unpaid work for the general benefit of the local community, such as painting and decorating, litter picking and graffiti removal (Wilcox and Hoyle, 2004; YJB, 2000, 2008; Sumner, 2006; Pamment and Ellis, 2010). This work could be undertaken during evenings or weekends over a period of three months, and it could involve local statutory, voluntary, faith and business partners, as well as private individuals (YJB, 2008).

In 2010, community reparation was rebranded and promoted to the public under the banner of ‘making good’ (YJB, 2010). However, this is suggestive only of restoration to the victims, conveying very little of what positive involvement may mean for the offender. Certainly, the notion is conceptually anomalous, with clear tensions between reparation which is re-integrative and reparation which is punitive (see Zedner, 1994; Sumner, 2006). By its definition, reparation must be a constructive process, whereby there is a lasting change in the attitude of the offender. As Braithwaite and Pettit (1990, p. 61) acknowledge, achieving such change may entail the offender undertaking practical training, facilitating social reintegration.

This book argues that youth justice community reparation (YJCR) has the potential to be a highly successful re-integrative intervention for young offenders. Indeed, the research evidence base presented in Chapter 3 shows that offenders should be provided with a variety of ‘meaningful’ work placements, which facilitate the acquisition of employability skills, essential for reintegration and desistance from crime (McGuire, 1995; Hollin and Palmer, 2006). Activities should also involve problem solving and challenge, motivating the offender and encouraging positive behavioural change, associated with reductions in re-offending. Additionally, the work should maximise contact with beneficiaries and placements must be perceived by offenders as worthwhile and useful to the community, increasing the sense of reparation (McIvor, 1991, 1992). It is important to note, however, that the evidence base surrounding unpaid work for offenders is not extensive and there is a lack of high quality research within this field.

Why research community reparation?

There are few notable studies which have explored adult offenders on community service and these are now somewhat dated (Varah, 1981; McIvor, 1991, 1993; Rex et al., 2003). Most importantly for this study, there has been no research explicitly focusing upon community reparation for young offenders. Instead, there have been two national evaluations of wider ranging youth justice sanctions, which have only briefly examined community reparation, resulting in limited and descriptive analyses (Holdaway et al., 2001; Wilcox and Hoyle, 2004).

Nevertheless, these evaluations have highlighted the poor quality of workplace provision and the deteriorating performance of YJCR. Whilst undertaking an evaluation into [then] new strategies that addressed youth offending behaviour, Holdaway et al. (2001, p. 101) discovered that offenders were being allocated to a very limited range of unskilled tasks, consisting primarily of ‘unchallenging’ shrub clearance work. Furthermore, there was little correlation between the tasks, offender and offence. This resulted in a number of staff within one Youth Offending Team (YOT) believing that community reparation was merely a ‘junior form of [adult] community service with minimal reparative benefits’. It was concluded that community reparation was deteriorating into a ‘tokenistic response’, whereby offenders gain very little from the process (Holdaway et al., 2001, p. 38).

As part of a national evaluation of restorative justice interventions undertaken three years later, Wilcox and Hoyle (2004) briefly examined YJCR. Again, the results were described as ‘unfavourable’ as offenders were being allocated to a limited range of menial activities, which were primarily perceived as a punishment and of no value to victims or the wider community. It was concluded that community reparation was not functioning as intended and not developing the interests or skills of young people.

We are therefore left with a dilemma. Whilst the disposal remains popular with sentencers, limited research has cast doubt upon whether the delivery of community reparation matches the evidence base of what is thought to be effective. Certainly, there is evidence of poor quality workplace provision, where some YOTs are providing a ‘formulaic response’ with little consideration for the young offenders and the attainment of employability skills. Arguably, this is reflected in the increasingly high reconviction rates over time following Reparation Order intervention, rising from 54.2% in 2002 to 67.2% in 2009 (Ministry of Justice, 2011a, p. 24), prompting the necessity for this study.

Despite such evidence of worsening effectiveness, there is no doubt that the YJB places significant emphasis on community reparation as a successful sanction, remaining a core component of the Youth Crime Action Plan (YJB, 2008). It is argued that community reparation reduces offending, benefits the community, provides reassurances as to the young person’s future offending behaviour and is suitable for all levels of intervention, including high risk offenders subject to Intensive Supervision and Surveillance (ISS) (YJB, 2010).

In this period of austerity, consecutive governments have also seen unpaid work as a method of achieving overall resource savings, advocating new rehabilitation providers, greater use, increased hours and most importantly, more ‘robust’ conditions (Ministry of Justice, 2012b; Solomon and Silvestri, 2008; YJB, 2009c; YJB, 2008). However, as this book argues, if ‘robust’ is used as a euphemism for ‘tough’, there is nothing new in this and the disposal will fail. If robust means ‘effective’ and ‘evidenced-based’ there is every indication that YJCR will succeed and make a substantial contribution to reductions in prison costs and the failure of earlier ‘tough’ alternatives like the ISSP (Ellis, Pamment and Lewis, 2009). Thus, this research is of immediate relevance to youth justice policy.

Research approach

This study, therefore, critically evaluates young offenders’ perceptions on the extent to which YJCR delivery in England and Wales matches the evidence base of what is thought to be effective. In order to achieve this, the text aims to: (1) Examine the comparative historical, political and legislative development of both adult CS and YJCR; (2) Review and integrate the research evidence base for adult CS and YJCR; (3) Evaluate YJCR in practice within a single YOT ‘case study’ area, utilising primary research to examine the perceptions of young offenders and their supervisors, drawing upon both secondary case file data and the previously identified evaluation evidence base; and finally, (4) Provide a critique of the organisation and delivery of YJCR.

Through a triangulated or combined methodology (see Bryman, 2008), this study utilised three primary data collection methods throughout the three year research period. As a community reparation supervisor, the bedrock of the study was in-depth participant observation, working alongside the young people during work placements, building rapport and encouraging a work ethic, thus becoming a ‘member’ of the observed group (Robson, 2002, p. 314; Jupp, 1989, p. 57; DeWalt and DeWalt, 1998). The key themes and findings from the literature review and observations were then utilised to compile assisted questionnaires for the young offenders.

Reflecting previous negative experience of interviewing severe and persistent offenders (see Holt and Pamment, 2011), assisted questionnaires were utilised with 97 young people. These provided a focal point for participants’ attention, facilitating a ‘visual aid to interface’ between researcher and respondents. Within the questionnaires, a ‘mixed methods’ summated rating or Likert scale data collection instrument was utilised, originally developed as a way of measuring psychological attitudes (see Likert, 1932; Gay, 1996).

In total, there were 14 simple statements, whereby participants responded with a numerical indication regarding their strength of feeling towards the assertion. This study utilised the optimum seven-point scale (Miller, 1956), where 1 represents a low negative opinion and 7 a highly positive agreement. These responses were then entered into SPSS¹ and an Independent-Samples t-test was carried out to investigate any statistically significant differences between those offenders given skills-based and those given non skills-based work placements (Brace, Kemp and Snelgar, 2009). However, unlike ‘purely’ positivist scales, participants’ responses were used to facilitate discussion and the generation of much qualitative data.

The assisted questionnaires for young offenders were then utilised to form the basis of a semi-structured interview schedule with 12 supervising staff. The overall benefit of this mode of delivery was to ensure consistency and gain responses to specific topics that could be analysed and compared to those of offenders. It also facilitated in-depth discussion and the production of qualitative data from busy YOT workers, who advocated such an approach (Nee, 2004; Noakes and Wincup, 2004).

Following primary data collection, the YOT provided case file information relating to every young person within this study. Key components included age; offence type (leading to referral); type of order (referral point); community reparation hours undertaken; breach information and ASSET scores.² After obtaining these cases, the data was coded and then analysed by the researcher using SPSS. Although access to the YOTs database was restricted and dependent upon the co-operation of administrative staff, this final phase of the study formed an integral part of the overall ‘combined’ research strategy. Having provided an outline of the methodological approach, the following section provides a brief overview of the structure of this book.

Book overview

Chapter 2 provides, uniquely in England and Wales, a holistic and systematic critique of the historical, political and legislative development of both adult CS and YJCR. It demonstrates how successive legislative changes and the political requirement for increased visibility have placed a more substantial emphasis on the retributive power of the disposals. It concludes by stressing the need to rediscover the rehabilitative and re-integrative benefits of getting offenders to undertake unpaid work. Drawing upon national reconviction data and relevant studies, Chapter 3 reviews and integrates the research evidence base for unpaid work. It argues that there is a paucity of high quality research into community reparation for young offenders. Chapter 4 presents the results of the primary research study, integrating the findings from both the quantitative and qualitative methods used. Following an analysis of YOT case file data, key themes covered include participants’ perceptions of skills acquisition; problem solving; punishment; benefits for the community; reparation and attitudes towards offending. The chapter uncovers serious inadequacies and failings regarding the organisation and delivery of community reparation for young offenders. Chapter 5 discusses the main conclusions of the research and it presents established principles for the successful delivery of unpaid work for offenders. It highlights major implications for future practice and identifies important areas for further research.

Notes

  1   Statistical Package of the Social Sciences.

  2   Introduced in April 2000, ASSET is a structured assessment tool used by YOTs in England and Wales, in order to assess young offenders’ needs and risks of re-offending (Baker, Jones, Roberts and Merrington, 2002; Gray, 2005; for a critical appraisal, see Baker, 2004).

2

Reintegration to Retribution: The Development of Unpaid Work for Offenders in England and Wales

Abstract: This chapter provides a critique of the historical, political and legislative development of both adult community service (CS) and youth justice community reparation (YJCR). It outlines the development of the Community Service Order (CSO) for adult offenders, charting its transformation from a re-integrative alternative to custody in 1972, to punishment in the community through the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It goes on to discuss the major implications of the burgeoning popular punitiveness that developed in relation to young offenders in the early 1990s; the introduction by New Labour of the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) and most importantly, the introduction of community reparation for young offenders. It concludes by stressing the need to rediscover the rehabilitative benefits of getting offenders to undertake unpaid work.

Pamment, Nicholas. Community Reparation for Young Offend...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1  Introduction
• 2  Reintegration to Retribution: The Development of Unpaid Work for Offenders in England and Wales
• 3  Realising the Potential: The Research Evidence Base for Unpaid Work
• 4  Youth Justice Community Reparation in Practice
• 5  Conclusion: The Future Direction of Youth Justice Community Reparation
• Bibliography
• Index