The Government needs to act to bring about a cultural change in the way we deal with children who offend, it is claimed …
… if we are to prevent a further rise in the number of children inappropriately ending up in prison, argues a Nacro report published.
A Better Alternative: reducing child imprisonment argues that although the Government shares the view that child imprisonment should be reduced, politicians and some youth justice practitioners risk undermining the effectiveness of programmes which are designed to function as alternatives to custody by playing to an incarcerative agenda. This agenda fails to take account of what is known about effective ways to deal with young offenders and the fact that youth crime is actually falling. It therefore fails to curb reoffending rates or address the high numbers of children ending up in prison for offences that do not warrant a custodial sentence. Keeping children in prison is expensive and is likely to increase the chance that they go on to commit more offences.
The report argues that this situation could be changed if there was a universal commitment, across the youth justice sector, to keeping children out of prison and using pre-court interventions – proven to be effective in diverting children from custody in the 1980s. It calls on the Government to introduce further legislation to develop more alternatives to custody and reduce the number of children, who pose little risk to society, wrongly ending up in prison.
The report claims incentives within the youth justice system do not encourage agencies to reduce levels of custody and, in some instances, operate to increase the pressure to incarcerate. In particular it points out the position of local agencies where there is a clear absence of positive incentives, mainly financial, to maintain young people in the community, paired with a culture amongst some practitioners to consider custody as a welcome reprieve when dealing with difficult cases.
Some findings of the report:
Government needs to remove existing financial incentives which operate perversely to favour custodial outcomes at local level – The cost of detention is borne centrally making it financially beneficial for local authorities, which are ultimately responsible for the provision of alternatives to custody, if children are imprisoned
Government needs to shift the youth crime debate – Instead of reinforcing a punitive agenda with tough rhetoric, they should promote the alternatives to custody that work and build public and practitioner confidence around them. There is a lack of public understanding about levels of youth crime, the use of child custody and what actually works in preventing reoffending. The Government has a duty to build public confidence by educating the public and develop a climate where the policy framework for youth justice can be allowed to be expert-led rather than led by exaggerated public anxiety.
Practitioner attitudes to custody – Youth offending team practitioners are much more ready than they were previously to propose custody in court reports and there is a lack of incentive to divert young people from custody. If practitioners are not fully convinced of the urgent necessity of alternatives to custody, then the chances of their successfully arguing for, and commanding the confidence of the court in alternatives, are greatly reduced
Role of magistrates – lack of information on local alternative provision made available to magistrates, along with a false perception of youth crime based on the higher number of cases now reaching court, are undermining their faith in alternatives to custody and creating a more punitive sentencing environment
Misuse of Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programmes (ISSP) as an alternative to custody – ISSP may to some extent be replacing other, less intensive, community options rather than custody. This is creating a ‘netwidening’ effect where young people who would otherwise have received some form of supervision, in any event, are made subject to a programme intended to be reserved for those who would otherwise be in custody
There are not enough low-level alternative interventions – Government needs to expand the range of community interventions of increasing intensity below the level of ISSP so that children committing minor offences can be best dealt further down the sentencing ‘ladder’ and intensive alternatives can be reserved for those who would otherwise be jailed.
If we are to reduce levels of detention there needs to be a greater use of discharges, fines and reparation orders.
What they say
Lord Carlile, Chair of the Nacro Committee on Children and Crime, said: “It is well recognised that there are too many children held in custody, and that many of the custodial placements in which they are held are unsuitable. This report shows how effective alternative interventions can break the cycle of damaged children becoming revolving door cases in the criminal justice system, and highlights what needs to be done to bring about a very necessary reduction in child imprisonment. Child crime can only be cut effectively if we are courageous enough to recognise the failings of present provision, and look for the widest range of non-custodial alternatives, with custody only when no alternative is realistic.”
