DECISION MAKING AND SERVICES RELATING TO CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE INVOLVED IN OFFENDING
8 Summary
Many jurisdictions moved away from 'welfare' towards 'justice' approaches to dealing with youth crime in the 1970s, in respect to young people from 12-15 upwards. Following ratification of the UNCRC by nearly all countries, though with the USA as a notable exception, most have also sought to readjust the 'balance' of their approach to youth justice in view of the Convention's requirement that 'the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration'. Canada, New Zealand and Australia all have a low age of criminal responsibility (12 to 13 years), whereas in Scandinavian countries the threshold for criminal proceedings is 15 years. Younger children continue to be dealt with mainly under child welfare auspices unless their offences are very serious. In all of these countries young people over the age threshold are dealt with in criminal processes that are modified from adult procedures to recognise their youthfulness, but adhere broadly to principles of due process, proportionality and accountability. The balance of justice and welfare achieved for this age group seems to be a constant source of tension within jurisdictions reflecting political imperatives for public safety and evidence on what is likely to be effective. No countries examined have adopted the UNCRC recommendation of removing all young people up to the age of 18 from criminal processes, but most have facilities to divert young people in this age group either from fully from criminal processes or from conviction through youth justice processes. Most jurisdictions retain pathways to full criminalisation and punishment for some young people.
There is a long tradition in many jurisdictions of involving lay people in decision making both in formal adult and youth criminal processes. There has been a significant growth and development of a more distinctive lay involvement, in recent years, in early intervention and decision making arenas aimed at preventing prosecution, de-criminalisation, and reducing the associated negative amplification effects of criminal processes for minor offenders through neighbourhood courts, volunteer crime panels and peer courts. However in many cases there is a regrettable absence of information on the characteristics or training of members of the public who are involved. Some critics claim that community justice initiatives are overly state driven and have not 'emerged' from community movements as such and to that extent represent an extension of existing criminal justice approaches rather than a new paradigm and approach to justice.
Research suggest that combinations of criminal justice processes and appropriate re-integrative services, particularly community based are likely to be more effective than criminal processes or sanctions on their own or than any intervention not directed by principles of effective intervention. There is no evidence that punishment based and institutional sanctions in themselves have any positive impact on improving young people's behaviour unless they provide effective services. The introduction of a victim perspective and direct involvement of victims can have positive effects on more serious violent offenders. For others it can act as a positive lever to change if opportunities and assistance are readily available.
Custody and institutional measures more generally show a continued risk of high rates of re-offending. Live-in regimes have to work much harder to succeed and equally required well designed and very well implemented regimes where effective service programmes can be delivered as intended. More innovative after care and maintenance and relapse prevention programmes are required to support young people maintain gains on their return to the community. New social opportunities are essential to re-integration.
Young people involved in persistent offending are more likely to come from vulnerable, disadvantaged and 'risky' families. Studies suggest that the absence of collaboration with parents tends to have a negative impact on the success rate of interventions involving children and young people. While there has been some research on parental involvement in decision making in child protection case conferences and also in family group conferences for child in need and children who offend, there is little documented information on parents having a structured role in the decision making in formal processes in youth justice systems. Indeed a general criticism of adversarial approaches is that they provide limited opportunity for parental involvement in decision making processes. The introduction of restorative justice approaches into youth justice practice has resulted in the development of new mechanisms for involving parents, families and victims directly in decision making and in problem resolution for young people.
Few countries in continental Europe attempt to coerce parents to become involved in decision making processes or subsequent intervention on the assumption that this is rarely likely to help their children. Programmes which promote the development of parental responsibility and skills are available in a number of countries often as early intervention measures for 'at risk' families. Attendance at programmes may be voluntary or compulsory. The greatest challenge reported at the practice level is often the very high level of need of parents and families involved.
The following evidence-based conclusions about methods that are effective with young people who offend is adapted from a recent literature review 230
- It is important to identify and reduce key risk factors which sustain and support offending e.g. antisocial peers, substance abuse, family functioning, school failure.
- The greater the number of risk factors addressed by an intervention, the greater its impact.
- Structured and focused interventions aimed at changing offending are particularly effective
- Programmes should target young people with a high predicted risk of further offending, particularly those with prior offences and both property and serious/violent histories.
- The level and nature of intervention should vary according to the assessed levels of risk/need. High risk young people require more intensive interventions (more time, programme components, frequency of contact) ;
- Working across multiple systems within which young people operate - family school/work, peer group and neighbourhood - is a desirable way to work, as is the deployment of multiple methods
- It is helpful to use behavioural skill-based approaches and 'contracts' to train young people in new skills, highlight un/desirable behaviour, responding positively and negatively as appropriate;
- Similarly, the use of cognitive techniques has been shown to produce good results. These teach positive social attitudes and values, develop problem solving skills and change thinking that supports criminal activity and harm to victims;
- Other components of successful programmes include: assisting young people take their share of responsibility and make good if possible; use of family networks to support effective parental supervision and contribute to positive change; helping young people build new positive relationships;
- Services that increase educational skills and achievements, employment skills and experience, and general life skills not only tend to reduce criminal activity but also promote a long term stake in society;
- It is essential to ensure programmes do what they intend to do.