 Making
A Difference
practice and planning in working with young people in community
safety and crime prevention programmes
Sample from this book:
Introduction to Preventative Work
John Pitts, Alan Dearling, Alison Skinner
In the late 1990s there was something of a renaissance of ‘community
prevention’ approaches within community safety, youth justice
and allied initiatives. Typical of this is the following statement
by John Blackmore (Community Safety Officer, Brent)
"It is not sufficient to have a single high profile project
which works successfully with a limited number of juvenile offenders.
Such projects need to form part of a co-ordinated youth justice
and youth crime prevention programme, actively led by local authorities
in partnership with police, probation, service, courts, health
authority, voluntary sector and the community. If the private
sector can be persuaded to demonstrate some sustained commitment
then all the better; (Blackmore, 1997)
Relatively recently, Carol Martin co-ordinated the ISTD Handbook
of Community Programmes for Young and Juvenile Offenders (first
edition 1997). In the introduction to the book, Martin makes the
point that the 1990s have been dominated by the spectre of the
out-of-control persistent young offender, following on from urban
riots in towns as far apart as Newcastle, Luton, Oxford and Cardiff
and the highly publicised Jamie Bulger murder. Given this context,
it is perhaps ironic, that Martin goes on to describe the contents
of the community programmes included in the book, saying
"What became clear during the research is that the
programmes which do target this rather euphemistically titled
"at risk" category are an extremely valuable community
resource and need as much attention as any other type or group
of programmes." (Martin, 1997)
Given that the ISTD survey of community programmes was the most
extensive carried out in recent years, it is interesting to note
that the common themes identified in the programmes, fall into
four categories:
1. Victim awareness/empathy issues
2. Anger management/violent behaviour
3. Drug/alcohol awareness
4. Positive leisure pursuits
Martin adds that, "so many programmes are based on cognitive/behavioural
skills and groupwork that they are not separately indexed."
(Ibid.)
During the 1990s and early 2000s, in a manner reminiscent of
the original establishment of intermediate treatment, there have
been various types of Youth Action groups established under a
range of initiatives linked to community safety. Those funded
by the Department of Education and Employment were primarily aimed
at promoting targeted youth work with young offenders by the youth
service providers (France and Wiles, 1996) A number of these foundered
because there remains resistance to what France and Wiles reported
to be, "work (which) was seen to compromise the values
and principles of youth work (Adams, 1988) similar arguments have
underpinned youth workers' unwillingness to become involved with
agencies such as the police (Markes and Smith, 1988)." (France
and Wiles, 1986).
France and Wiles concluded their evaluation of the scheme with
the comment. "..How little youth work has developed as
a profession, compared with, say, teaching or social work….
The professional development of youth work is important if the
Youth Service is to play its role as an equal partner in multi-disciplinary
and inter-agency responses to youth problems in general and crime
in particular." (ibid.)
An even more extensive scheme is the mainly school-based initiatives
sponsored by the Prudential and Crime Concern, which seem to have
led to wider scale developments, with, "1,200 groups,
involving the work of 20,000 young people in a quarter of all
state secondary schools. The priority issues being tackled by
these young people include bullying, vandalism, graffiti, personal
safety, shop theft, bogus callers, burglary prevention schemes,
school security measures and environmental improvements."
(Pru Youth Action, 1997)
A further shot in the arm for a back-to-prevention stance came
from the Audit Commission's report Misspent Youth published in
1996. That report recommended replacing ineffective court disposals
with more preventative strategies designed to, "guide
young people towards constructive activities." (Audit
Commission, 1996).
It is a close echo of Douglas Hurd's aim of offering "attractive
alternatives" with the establishment of Crime Concern
in 1988. Crime Concern's briefing paper on "Young people,
Crime and Prevention" contends, "In areas where
there is a high level of offending by young people, it will usually
not be sufficient to focus on just one aspect of a child's life
or one stage of development. More broadly-based preventive action
is necessary to ensure that there is continuity (over time), reinforcement
(of standards in different locations) and inclusion (of young
people in their communities)." (NACRO, 1997)
Preventative work retains the attraction of being financially
cheaper than custody, electronic tagging, or intensive supervision.
It also increasingly includes elements of the restorative agenda,
particularly proportionality making appropriate responses that
reflect the severity of offences. At the very least, it still
offers social work, probation, housing, education, health authorities,
the police and courts opportunities to work in ways which seem
humane and caring, as well as containing a punitive element. This
is just as possible in the youth justice system envisaged under
the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, as it was in previous eras.
It is anticipated that the contents of this book will have some
relevance to members of Youth Offending Teams and Youth Offending
Panels, who are now being required to work with young people at
risk and in trouble in new ways, following changes in legislation.
Since the advent of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 the whole
diversionary strategy regarding young offenders has been transformed,
with new procedures introduced. The previous system of cautions
has been abolished and Sections 65 and 66 of the Act has established
the system of reprimands
And Final Warnings. When a Final Warning is administered by
a police officer they are required to refer children and young
people to the local Youth Offending Team for a "rehabilitation
programme" assessment.
If the assessment indicates the need for such a programme the
YOT must produce one which:
1) Addresses the factors which contributed to the offending
2) Describes the commitment the parent or primary carer can make
in supporting the programme.
3) Describes the contact made or attempted with the victim.
4) Describes work planned to increase the offender's awareness
of the harm caused by crime, or to make reparation.
(Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 1999)
In addition to intervention at this stage there is also a new
point on the tariff for first time offenders. Part 1 of the Youth
Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provides for a Referral
Order, which is intended to become the standard sentence imposed
by the Youth Court or other Magistrates Court for children and
young people convicted of an offence or offences for the first
time.
They will normally be referred by the Court to a Youth Offender
Panel who will establish a "programme of behaviour "
which the young person will be obliged to observe. The principal
aim of the programme will be the prevention of re-offending by
the child. (S.8(1). Section 8 identifies typical components of
a programme of intervention which include:
- financial or other forms of reparation to the victim/s of
the offence/s;
- mediation sessions with the victims;
- unpaid work as a service to the community;
- conditions that require the child to be at home at specified
times and attend school or work;
- specified activities to "address offending behaviour"
and /or to serve rehabilitative purposes with respect to drug
and/or alcohol misuse;
- reporting conditions to persons and/or places;
- prohibition from association with specified persons and/or
places;
- compliance with the supervision and recording requirements
of the programme.
The terms of such a programme will form the basis of the "youth
offender contract" S8 (6) which the young person will be
required to sign. Once the programme of behaviour has been established
and the contract signed, the progress of the young person will
be subject to review by the Youth Offending Panel. (Godson, 1999)
The implementation of the Act is still in its early stages and
it is not yet clear how YOTs and Youth Offending Panels will interpret
their responsibilities.
There are concerns in the field about the philosophy, assumptions
and procedures underpinning this diversionary approach, well expressed
by Goldson (1999) and Haines (1999). Modifications may well take
place as the new systems bed in, but in the meantime staff need
to think about the type of programme which might best deliver
these objectives.
Haines (1999) sets out some principles regarding work with young
people which should apply to the operation of Youth Offending
Panels:
- "The best interests of the child should be the defining
principle of the aims of Panels, in full recognition that in
so doing measures to promote the prevention of re-offending
will be maximised;
- Representation on Panels should include agencies and organisations
who have general and specific responsibilities to protect and
provide services to children. Panels should be managed in such
a way to ensure these agencies' responsibilities are properly
discharged;
- The measures applied to young persons under the Youth Offender
Contract should reflect the age and maturity of the young person,
their degree of culpability and the seriousness of the offence;
- Particularly for young and minor offenders, overly intrusive
measures which focus on criminogenic need are inappropriate
and should be replaced by interventions which seek to promote
positive behaviour."
References
Adams, R, (1988) 'Finding a way' in Jeffs,T and Smith, M (eds)
Welfare and youth work practice. Macmillan
Audit Commission (1996) Misspent Youth, Young People
and Crime. Audit Commission
Blackmore, J, (1997) 'Community support for young people' in
Criminal Justice Matters, no.28, ISTD
Crime Concern (1997) Young people, crime and prevention
(briefing paper 4),Crime Concern
France, A and Wiles, P, (1996) The Youth Action Scheme: a
report of the national evaluation. DFEE
Goldson, B, (1999) 'Wither Diversion? Interventionism and the
New Youth Justice' in Goldson, B, (Eds.) The New Youth Justice.
Russell House.
Haines, K, (1999), 'Referral Orders and Youth Offender Panels:
Restorative Approaches and the New Youth Justice' in Goldson,
B, (Eds.) The New Youth Justice. Russell House.
Martin, C, (1997) The ISTD Handbook of Community Programmes
for Young and Juvenile Offenders. ISTD/Waterside
Pru Youth Action (1997) Partners for life: young people and
community safety, Crime Concern/Pru Youth Action
Read the other sample from this book - games
and activities
|