This book focuses on the experiences of children and young people, referred to from now on as young people in the interest of brevity, in custody in England, through analysis of a series of interviews with young people and staff in a Secure Training Centre (STC). The authors also analysed questionnaires, case files and observational data collected during a doctoral research study. The authors are a multi-disciplinary team with a wealth of expertise across the fields of youth and restorative justice, child sexual exploitation, policing and education, which is combined with a common interest and experience in Social Impact Measurement (SIM)1. The book explores the data by combining Integrated Cognitive Anti-social Potential (ICAP) theory and desistance theory with SIM to demonstrate the importance of measuring social impact for policy and practice. The authors hope that where allegedly evidence-based (Smith 2007), counterproductive and inhumane policy has failed, a recognition of the social and economic cost of this failure will prompt change, discussion and dialogue.
This book is rooted in research conducted by Paterson-Young (2018) that explored how social impact measurement as a form of organisational performance management can enhance outcomes for children and young people in custody. The authors use this research throughout the book, drawing on quantitative (questionnaires) and qualitative (semi-structured interviews, case analysis and observations). Drawing on this research the book presents a framework, rooted in the Taylor (2016) report, based on the diverse needs of young people, with chapters on youth justice, health and wellbeing, relationships, education, independence and attitudes and resettlement, all hung on a social impact measurement approach which opens the book. The research conducted by Paterson-Young (2018) employed a sequential mixed method approach that promoted the active participation of young people, as well as staff members, in STCs. The quantitative data, presented in this book, was generated from questionnaires completed by young people (n = 68) and staff (n = 74) and qualitative data was generated from semi-structured interviews with young people (n = 15) and staff (n = 15). The quotes presented by the authors throughout the chapters from any āyoung personā or āstaffā, are directly from the research, with pseudo names used to protect identity.
A recent report (Taylor 2016) exploring the experiences of children in custody emphasises how the roots of youth offending are embedded in our social institutions, our health care, housing and education systems, as well as our social care agencies. Systems whose existence should underpin and support those deemed āat riskā and āvulnerableā in our society, end up criminalising and incarcerating them which results in young people playing out a dual role as āthreateningā hooligans (Pearson 1983) or āfolk devilsā (Cohen 1972). The punitive approaches that underpin policy and practice across youth justice in England today has resulted in the creation of the ātwin goals of welfare and justiceā (Muncie et al. 2002: 1), with ājusticeā emerging as the primary goal whenever high profile youth justice cases create moral outrage amongst the public (a situation the media does little to minimise) (Franklin and Petley 1996).
Programmes to empower young people within the youth justice system needs to be underpinned by an outcomes-based approach, grounded in theory relating to evaluating impact. The issue of power (Weber 1978) is central to any discussion of issues related to recidivism within social structures. Power mediates the flow of resources, personal agency and narratives; it shapes policy interventions and the rules that govern the young people and staff in the STCs, both under the glare of public perception and the dominant societal discourse of the time, all of which shape the outcomes for the young people contained within the STC. Weber links power to class structures that embed a lack of resources (economic and otherwise) for disadvantaged sections of society, from where many incarcerated young people emerge. The authors position Weberian ideas of power with ICAP theory and desistance theory, to create a SIM framework that explores the impact of custody on young people. ICAP theory (Farrington 2005) explains offending behaviour in young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, by showing how economic, relational and psychological factors lead to anti-social potential and potentially criminal behaviour. Analysing social impact within youth justice in relation to overcoming this lack of power, by focusing on those outcomes that matter most to young people, turns the traditional discourse on its head. ICAP theory presents factors, such as family disruption, poverty and poor school attainment, as risk factors while desistance theory presents the personal narrative. This allows the book to present a model that has strong theoretical underpinnings, whilst also developing a holistic overview of offending behaviour that acknowledges the individual, institutional and societal causes.
Placing the wellbeing of and positive outcomes for young people at the heart of measuring impact in the youth justice system is essential to solving what many in society view as the issue of āproblemā children. Before we explore social impact measurement and its implications for empowering young people in Chap. 3, we review the recent history of youth justice in Chap. 2, with a summary of approaches to youth offending and its reactive nature and contradictory history. The chapter culminates with a discussion of the Taylor Review (2016) of the youth justice system that recommended the creation of child-focused secure schools. Secure schools aim to give head teachers autonomy to recruit and train staff, to commission the necessary support services, such as mental health, and create a culture where behaviour is effectively managed, and rehabilitation is promoted. This generates a child centred culture that recognises that these are vulnerable young people who would benefit from a therapeutic environment and specialist care. The Taylor report (2016) was followed by an announcement at the Conservative party conference in 2018 that Medway STC, an STC with a cheq...