engaging with the views of young people with experience of ... · the engagement process consisted...
TRANSCRIPT
Engaging with the views of young people with experience of the youth justice system
Deliberative research and engagement by the Police Foundation and NatCen, the National Centre for Social Research
1
Engaging with the views of young people with experience of the youth justice system
Deliberative research and engagement by the Police Foundation and NatCen, the National Centre for Social Research Findings from the research and engagement process that informed the report of the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour - ‘Time for a Fresh Start’.
Authors: Nicky Cleghorn, Rachel Kinsella and Carol McNaughton Nicholls January 2011
Acknowledgements First of all, our sincere thanks go to all of the young people who took part in this research.
Thank you also to the staff of the gatekeeper organisations that assisted us in making contact with young people, to
the Paul Hamlyn Foundation for funding this engagement process, to David Utting and all of the staff at the Police
Foundation who assisted with the research and engagement process. Perpetua Kirby provided excellent support and
assistance during the workshops, thank you, and to the Commissioners who attended, thank you – we hope this was
a sincere and enjoyable experience for all who were involved.
The views in the report are not necessarily those of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, the Police Foundation or the
Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour. They reflect the views of the young people
interviewed and involved in the engagement and research process.
The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) designs, carries out and analyses research studies and
engagement processes in the fields of social and public policy, including extensive research among members of the
public.
2
Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................. 1 Authors .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Summary .................................................................................................................................. 4 Understanding youth crime and antisocial behaviour .............................................................................. 4 Contact with the youth justice system ...................................................................................................... 4 Desistance from offending ....................................................................................................................... 7
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 8 Project aims ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Project outline ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................... 9
Depth interviews .................................................................................................................................... 10 Deliberative focus groups ....................................................................................................................... 10
Research sample ............................................................................................................................................... 10 Research sample ................................................................................................................................... 10 Interview sample .................................................................................................................................... 11
Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Engagement workshops ......................................................................................................................................12
Workshops attendees ............................................................................................................................ 13 Ethics.............. ................................................................................................................................................... 14 Structure of report .............................................................................................................................................. 14
2 Understanding young people’s criminal and antisocial behaviour ............................ 15 Defining crime and antisocial behaviour ............................................................................................................. 16
Crime ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 Youth crime ........................................................................................................................................... 16 Antisocial behaviour ............................................................................................................................... 17
Enabling and constraining criminal and antisocial behaviour .............................................................................. 17 Social networks ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Socio-economic status and meaningful occupation ................................................................................ 19
Normalisation of criminal and antisocial behaviour ............................................................................................. 20
3 Young people’s experiences of the youth justice system ........................................... 22 Police........... ...................................................................................................................................................... 22
Nature of communication ....................................................................................................................... 22 Information and procedures ................................................................................................................... 23 Perceptions of discrimination ................................................................................................................. 24 Engagement workshop - youth and police relations ............................................................................... 25
Attending Court .................................................................................................................................................. 27 Engagement workshop – courts ............................................................................................................. 28 Commissioners and young people ......................................................................................................... 29
Custodial sentences ........................................................................................................................................... 30 Length and value of sentences .............................................................................................................. 31 Engagement workshop - custodial sentences ........................................................................................ 32 Commissioners and young people ......................................................................................................... 32
Additional sanctions ........................................................................................................................................... 34 Fines/Warnings ...................................................................................................................................... 34 Electronic tagging .................................................................................................................................. 35 Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) ..................................................................................................... 35 Restorative justice.................................................................................................................................. 35 Engagement workshop - commissioners and young people ................................................................... 35
Contact with youth justice system agencies ........................................................................................................ 37 Youth Justice Centre (YJC) .................................................................................................................... 37 Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) ............................................................................................................. 38 Probation officers ................................................................................................................................... 39
Principles of the youth justice system ................................................................................................................. 39 Punishment tailored to the individual versus fixed punishments ............................................................. 39 Consideration given to the personal circumstances of young people involved in ASB and/or crime ........ 40
3
4 Breaking the cycle – Rehabilitation and prevention ..................................................... 41 Rehabilitation and support .................................................................................................................................. 41
Critical junctures .................................................................................................................................... 41 Developing Stability ............................................................................................................................... 42 Positive role models and pastoral support .............................................................................................. 43 Self awareness ...................................................................................................................................... 43 Aspirations and goals ............................................................................................................................. 44 Engagement workshop with commissioners and young people - criminal records .................................. 44
Prevention of crime – depth interviews ............................................................................................................... 45 Prevention of crime – focus groups .................................................................................................................... 46 Prevention of crime – workshop plenary ............................................................................................................. 47
Prevention of crime ................................................................................................................................ 48 Prevention of reoffending ....................................................................................................................... 48
5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 50
6 Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 52
4
Summary
The Police Foundation and NatCen (the National Centre for Social Research) were awarded grant support from the
Paul Hamlyn Foundation’s Social Justice Programme for an engagement project with young people who have
experience of the youth justice system as witnesses, victims or perpetrators of crime. The insights obtained through
the project were used to contribute to proposals for reforming the way society responds to youth offending,
developed by the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour (‘the Commission’).
The engagement process consisted of two stages of research, interviewing 21 young people and four deliberative
focus groups, and a series of workshops that brought young people together with members of the Commission to
discuss their views. The findings from the research and deliberative workshops are summarised here. These are
based entirely on the views of the young people and reflect the concerns that they raised.
Understanding youth crime and antisocial behaviour
Young people had experienced fractured and difficult home lives, and a close proximity to crime. When they
had engaged in crime or antisocial behaviour it was alongside a sense they had few employment or education
opportunities.
Not all young people had experienced such unsettled lives however, and for some, becoming involved in crime
was a precursor for their home lives deteriorating.
Young people become involved in crime or antisocial behaviour for a variety of reasons. Key reasons identified
included (and could interrelate):
- Normalisation - this was a normal aspect of behaviour within their social networks;
- Providing a ‘thrill’ or occupation of time; and,
- Providing income or status, in the face of few other options.
Young people reported feeling unfairly labelled by adults as engaging in crime or antisocial behaviour, when
they were acting as a ‘normal’ young person would, such as being on the street with friends. This could lead to
them feeling alienated from adults.
Contact with the youth justice system
Whether as victims, witnesses or offenders, the young people tended to wish to avoid contact with the youth justice
system if they could.
Recommendations made by the young people regarding improvement to the youth justice system included:
Police
Young people have a higher level of trust and respect for the police when they feel the police speak to them
like ‘normal’ people or with a level of respect; listen to them; are polite, and explain what is happening. This
is whether they are in contact with the police as victims, witnesses or offenders.
When police treat young people in this manner they feel more likely to report crime and cooperate with
police if they are arrested.
‘Stop and Searches’ are not popular and the practice is felt to discriminate against young people.
5
Recommendations generated during the engagement workshop to improve relations between the police and young people relations included:
Specialist training for police officers on working with young people (which could be developed, informed or
delivered by young people).
Ensuring diversity among police officers, which could include those who have previously been offenders.
Respected members of young people’s social networks or community acting as intermediaries with the
police.
Police investing in and having a positive presence in communities, which is actively promoted and
advertised. This would ‘humanise’ the police and generate a sense that they can and do support and help
young people.
Courts
Attending court could be an inevitable aspect of the lives of young people involved in crime and deemed an
inconvenient, but not difficult, process.
However:
Young people were also concerned about the process, and would like clear information about what is
happening when they attend court.
The length of time that it takes for a case to come to court can limit the ability to ‘move on’ the young person
once they have been charged with an offence.
Concerns regarding attending court at the same time as the offender can prevent young people who are
victims or witnesses from attending. To alleviate this, It was suggested that victims or witnesses should be
able to give their evidence by alternative means, or on a different day or at another location from the
accused.
Deliberation during the engagement workshop led to the following conclusions regarding the court process:
Attending court is not necessarily a deterrent that would prevent young people from committing an offence
and can become routine.
The process of attending court is not well understood by young people or explained to them.
There can be lengthy delays before a case goes to court. During this time young people can feel ‘in limbo’.
It is fair for young people to go to court for serious offences, but not if they are very young or the offence is
minor.
Young people favoured decisions being made in court by professionals and not a lay panel.
Minor offences should be dealt with in an informal ‘meeting’ type situation, that is clearly explained to young
people, rather than in court
6
Custodial sentences
Custodial sentences could act as a deterrent to crime, but could also act to embed young people into
social networks and environments where crime is normalised.
Custodial sentences are useful only when accompanied with support to access training, education or
overcome additional needs such as substance misuse.
There could be better support for making the transition from prison to the community, especially in terms of
securing stable accommodation, training and employment and abstaining from substance misuse.
Generally custodial sentences were not viewed as useful for preventing further crime being committed in the
future.
Priority areas of agreement between young people and commissioners regarding custody that were identified during
the workshop included:
There is a need for good quality resettlement support that is consistent and long term, this would support
people once released and help them to avoid reoffending (an example of this type of support was provided).
Custodial remands are lengthy and should be set at as short a period as possible.
Alternatives to short sentences should be provided that include support for underlying problems such as
drug misuse.
High quality support is possible in prison, as one pilot project discussed during the engagement
demonstrated, and should become routine.
Restorative justice
Restorative forms of justice were favoured by the young people throughout the research. This included
offenders repairing property they had damaged, repaying victims whose property they had stolen and
providing an opportunity to consider the impact their offending may have on others.
Workshop discussions on restorative justice highlighted the following limitations to this approach however:
Nature of the offence should be taken into account and restorative justice may not be an appropriate
response for serious offences.
The set up and process is complex and lengthy.
Engagement of all parties – victims, witnesses, community etc - is required for restorative justice to be
successful.
Rehabilitation
It was suggested that young people, particularly those who are ex-offenders, could be employed to support
other young offenders, because they understand what they are going through and the young person will
listen to and respect them.
Young people felt that it was important that they should have respect for the youth justice system to ensure
that it functioned well. The recommendations from the research indicate ways in which this may be achieved
– this included the suggestion of a points system whereby young offenders can ‘earn’ a clean criminal record
that also enhances their chances of rehabilitation.
7
Desistance from offending
Young people no longer involved in crime identified key factors that had triggered their desistance from
offending. These included:
- A critical event in their life such as being badly injured in an assault, or knowing someone who had
been badly injured.
- Being able to develop greater stability in their life, such as securing suitable accommodation and
having something meaningful to occupy their time. Obtaining a reasonable income could be
particularly problematic after being used to income derived from crime.
- Having a positive role model and support in their life. This could come from unofficial sources, or
professionals such as YOT workers, providing they were very engaged and understanding.
- Young people developing their own self awareness, aspirations and goals for the future.
Desistance was also associated with:
- Living in a crime free environment and/or having a friendship group not involved in crime;
- Independent thought and thinking about the consequences of crime;
- Receiving guidance from parents/carers and school; and,
- ‘Growing up’ and gaining employment or an occupation.
Workshop plenary on prevention. The following key issues were raised regarding desistance at the workshop
sessions:
Desistance requires:
- Early intervention; and,
- Responsible carers/parents.
And is promoted if young people have:
- Positive role models and mentors;
- Aspirations and goals; and,
- Job and education opportunities.
For these outcomes to be achieved in the lives of young people requires more than the restructuring of the youth
justice system, however; it requires societal and structural change. This poses a challenge to the Commission.
However the message from the young people is clear – young people can be supported to cease their involvement in
crime when the system operates in a manner that incorporates their needs.
8
1. Introduction
The Police Foundation and NatCen (the National Centre for Social Research) were awarded grant support from the
Paul Hamlyn Foundation’s Social Justice Programme for an engagement project with young people who have
experience of the youth justice system as witnesses, victims or perpetrators of crime. The insights obtained through
the project contributed (alongside a range of other material) to proposals for reforming the way society responds to
youth offending developed by the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour (‘the
Commission’). However, the project is also of interest in its own right as a demonstration of how marginalised young
people who are involved in or affected by crime and antisocial behaviour can be engaged with to participate in
deliberations about reform. The findings from the research and deliberative workshops that took place are provided in
this report.
There has been increasing recognition that children and young people should be involved in the decisions that affect
them (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child). To do so, effective channels need to be facilitated that allow
children and young people to communicate their views to those involved in making the decisions and policies that
affect them. This project intended to create such as channel between young children with experience of the youth
justice system and the Commissioners who would make recommendations regarding how the Justice System
responds to young people as victims, witnesses and offenders.
The Commission aimed to conduct a fundamental re-examination of the way that society responds to troublesome
behaviour by children and young people. The Commission published their recommendations in the summer of 2010.
The members of the Commission are listed in Appendix B (page 54).
The National Youth Agency defines participation as ‘the process by which children and young people influence
decision making which brings about change in them, others, their services and communities’. The findings and
activities presented in this report have been used, among other sources, to inform the decision making of the
Commission. The aim of the process has been to provide a genuine illustration of participation – the young person
not just ‘being allowed to speak’ but ‘their voice being taken into account’ in decisions made about them1. With this in
mind a separate User Guide is also available that accompanies this report, reflecting on the extent to which the
engagement process influenced the Commission’s decision making and outlining points to consider for other
agencies wishing to conduct similar processes with young people.
Project aims
The aims of the project were to:
Explore young people’s experiences of the youth justice system and their involvement with antisocial
behaviour or criminal behaviour.
Examine motivations for young people’s criminal or antisocial behaviour.
Generate recommendations for improvements to the youth justice system that have relevance to offenders,
victims and witnesses.
Model a learning process that not only enables participants to contribute effectively to the Commission’s
work, but also demonstrates how marginalised young people in contact with the youth justice system, and
adult members of the Commission, can productively be engaged in a dialogue about policy and service
reform.
1 Hart, D. & Thompson, C. (2009) Young people’s participation in the youth justice system, London, NCB.
9
Project outline
The project consisted of a planned three-stage process where structured, qualitative interviews led to the recruitment
of a smaller group of young people willing to engage actively with the Commission.
The first stage comprised of 21 confidential depth interviews with young people aged between 12 and 25.
The second consisted of four small deliberative groups (four to six people in each), inviting a new set of young people
to build on the findings from the first stage and consider options for reforming the youth justice system.
The third phase in March 2010, led to a face-to-face meeting between young people and the Commissioners. This
was led by Perpetua Kirby an independent expert on youth engagement. She facilitated preparation sessions with six
young people aged 18 to 25, with experience of the youth justice system. She also worked, separately, with
members of the Commission. These ‘capacity building’ sessions were to ensure that the young people and the
Commissioners entered into a dialogue, and benefited from effective and challenging discussions when they met,
rather than the process taking the form of previous interviews and visits the Commissioners had attended.
The first and second stages were completed in early 2010. The data from the research stages were analysed and
emerging findings identified which formed the basis for planning the discussion sessions for the deliberative
workshops.
Methods
Depth interviews
The interviews were used to ascertain the young person’s personal experiences of crime and antisocial behaviour.
This took the form of a life history interview, first exploring the young person’s current circumstance, then exploring
their experiences of crime and antisocial behaviour chronologically from the first to the most recent episode. Their
experiences of contact with the youth justice system and the impact that they felt such contact had on their
offending/victim pathways were also explored. Finally the young people were asked to identify measures that could
have prevented their offending, and key messages that they would like to pass onto the Commission.
Extensive efforts were made to ensure material for the interviews could be used flexibly and interactively with
participants of different ages. Examples of this material included an A3 colour diagram mapping the research process
which included pictures of the Commissioners and pictorial images to represent who was conducting the research,
and the eventual audience. The diagram was used to promote understanding from the young people during the
informed consent process before obtaining their consent to continue with the interview.
In addition to a topic guide, a set of scenario based images of actions that may constitute antisocial behaviour or
crime were developed. These cards were used to explore young people’s actions, and what constituted either crime
or antisocial behaviour from their perspectives.
The young people were also provided with sheets of paper, pens and ‘post it’ notes enabling them to draw or ‘stick
on’ their life story whilst verbally recounting it during the interview, and also when discussing their experiences and
views on crime and antisocial behaviour.
Older participants who were comfortable recounting their experiences verbally without additional prompts were also
given that option.
10
Deliberative focus groups
The second stage of the research, which followed the depth interviews with young people, consisted of a series of
deliberative focus groups. The young people involved in the focus groups also had personal experiences of crime
and antisocial behaviour, and of contact with the youth justice system. However focus groups are not appropriate
forums to explore personal experiences, rather they allow for ideas and concepts to be explored within a group
dynamic, and for scenarios and suggestions to be developed that include the perspective of a number of
participants. Therefore the aims of the focus groups were to generate ideas for improving responses to youth crime
and antisocial behaviour, including ways of preventing children and other young people from becoming involved in
crime, and views on policing, courts, custody and other parts of the youth justice system.
Similar materials were used to inform the young people of the research during the focus group discussions as during
the interviews, such as the diagram of the research process. A set of cards was also created that outlined principles
of the Commission. These were used in the focus group discussions with the young people to explore their views of
the justice system and how it should respond to youth crime.
Particularly salient issues emerging from the depth interviews were singled out to be discussed during the focus
groups, so that the young people could reflect on these issues. Therefore where relevant in the report, such as the
discussion of specific principles not brought up during the interviews, the focus group findings are reported
separately.
Research sample
21 young people took part in depth interviews. Four deliberative focus groups took place (two were mini-groups, with
a larger group of eight young people divided into two smaller groups of four). 22 young people took part in the groups
in total.
Below, the sample characteristics from both stages of the research are outlined:
Research sample
Interview Groups Total Male 13 13 26 Female 8 9 17 South 6 6 12 North 4 0 4 Wales 11 16 27 Aged 10 - 13 3 3 6 Aged 14 - 17 9 14 23 Aged 18 - 25 9 5 14
In total 43 young people took part in the research stages. Due to recruitment difficulties in the North of England, and
indeed very challenging recruitment overall, a greater number of young people from Wales took part than was initially
planned. Additional sampling from Wales took place to ensure that diversity was achieved within the sample in the
research time scale.
A complex sample matrix was developed and applied to the selection of the young people who took part in Stage
One. This ensured that an adequately diverse group of young people were consulted but set challenging criteria for
the selection and recruitment of young people within a short timescale.
The young people were recruited via gatekeeper organisations. Whilst the gatekeeper organisations were an
invaluable support to the project, recruitment encountered a number of unforeseen challenges. Despite a formal
application being made, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) was deferring requests for research and
11
participatory work from external projects until May 2010. Due to the timetable for this project, this effectively meant
that participants could not be recruited from NOMS managed secure units, as was originally planned.
Exceptionally bad weather during the scheduled fieldwork also disrupted plans. Given the transient and vulnerable
nature of some of the research participants, being unable to attend a scheduled interview could have a serious
impact, as rearranging interviews was not always possible. In addition, as is typical with research with potentially
vulnerable groups, there were cases of interviews being cancelled and rescheduled repeatedly before being
successfully completed. An inclusive approach was taken to this and researchers repeatedly attended rescheduled
interviews and scheduled interviews with lengthy spaces of time apart to ensure young people that were later than the
appointed time could be accommodated without disrupting the subsequent interview.
The achieved sample also met the majority of the originally set quotas. The details are below:
Interview sample
Experience of the youth justice system
Offender Victim / witness
Gender Male 11 6
Female 7 4
Age
10-13 3 2
14-17 7 4
18-24 7 3
Offending history
At risk of offending 3
1st or 2
nd offence 5
Persistent offender 8
Custodial sentence 5
Circumstances outside of the youth justice system
Excluded from school / regular non-attendance
11
In residential or foster care 1
Referred to drug & alcohol treatment services
4
Homeless / from homeless family
7
Involved in street / gang culture 7
Ethnicity
White 12
Black African / Caribbean 6
Asian 2
Mixed 1
Geographic location
North 3 2
South 5 2
Wales 10 5
Analysis
The qualitative data was analysed using Framework, a systematic approach to qualitative data management,
developed by NatCen and now widely used in social policy research.
The process involves first, key topics and issues from the data being identified through familiarisation with the
transcripts. An analytical framework is then drawn up and a series of thematic charts or matrices set up, each relating
to a different thematic issue. Data from each participant is then summarised into the appropriate cell. In this way, the
data is ordered in a systematic way that is grounded in participants’ own accounts, yet oriented towards the project
objectives.
12
This approach is supported by bespoke software also developed by NatCen www.natcen.ac.uk/framework/. The
software enables a highly flexible approach to the creation of the matrices, enabling new columns or ‘themes’ to be
added during the process of data management or the life of the project.
The findings from the research stages and workshops are presented in this report. The findings from the research
were previously reported and used to identify key areas for deliberation at the engagement workshops.
Engagement workshops
The intention of the workshops was to develop an iterative and responsive dialogue between the Commissioners and
young people, the results of which, alongside the findings from the qualitative research completed as a precursor to
the engagement workshop, and a range of other research activities completed for the Commission, would inform the
Commissioners’ thinking and conclusions.
To do so, three workshops took place on the 3rd and 4
th March 2010. The first workshop was a facilitated dialogue
with the Commissioners, exploring their aims, anticipation and concerns regarding engagement with the young
people. The facilitator encouraged the Commissioners to consider the optimum means by which they could
meaningfully engage with the young people, and paired discussions with a moderator were conducted to hone the
key areas of interest the Commissioners wished to discuss with the young people. The Commissioners also prepared
a presentation for the young people, whereby details about themselves, their occupations, and their expertise and
experiences of crime were written on cards and placed in a box. The Commissioners then organised this information
to be read out to the young people.
The information from Workshop One was reviewed by the research team in the afternoon and six key themes
identified by the Commissioners were identified for discussion with the young people. These were: custody;
experiences of court; restorative justice; young people and police relations; criminal records; and the prevention of
crime/antisocial behaviour. The findings from the research stage were also reviewed to draw out key findings and
suggestions for reform that had previously been made regarding these themes by young people. This material was
then used to develop group exercises that could be completed with the young people during the workshops
sessions to support them to enter into a dialogue with the Commissioners that focused on the priority themes the
Commissioners identified.
The second workshop was attended by the young people and moderators. This was to allow the young people a
space to meet each other, identify the key points they would like to make during the discussion session and also the
ensure that any questions that the young people had regarding the engagement workshop with the Commissioners
could be answered. The young people did have a number of questions and concerns regarding the nature and
purpose of the afternoon session, which were allayed during this stage. In this way the young people were engaged
in the process and comfortable in the space where the engagement would occur, prior to the final workshop. The
young people also prepared a presentation for the Commissioners, where they outlined the types of experiences of
crime and antisocial behaviour they had had and their views on why these occur. The young people chose to
develop this presentation though drama and act out their experiences with narratives at the end of each scene.
During this process the young people (who had not previously all met) also began to operate as a group and support
each other.
At the third workshop the Commissioners joined the young people (arriving at lunch time) for the deliberative
engagement process. The facilitator introduced the aims and structure of the workshop and both groups
(commissioners and young people) made their presentations to each other. The young people were asked to match
the Commissioners to the occupations they had listed the day before. This exercise appeared to work very well with
the young people particularly appreciating hearing the types of crime and antisocial behaviour that the Commissioners
had engaged in. The young people then gave their presentation to the Commissioners, which was well received. An
ice break exercise – speed dating between the young people and Commissioners - then followed where they could
ask general questions about each other and their interests.
13
The formal sessions then began. In the first session small group work took place. In each group two Commissioners
and two young people selected one of three of the six key themes and worked through exercises focussing on the
theme. The discussions were audio taped by a moderator. The content of these discussions are reported in the
relevant sections of this report. After the first session a general feedback session was held with the whole group
before splitting into two groups and repeating the discussion session and relevant exercises, for two further themes.
The entire group then joined together for a final plenary session focusing on prevention of crime. The engagement
workshop concluded with a reflective feedback discussion on what the young people and Commissioners felt that
they had learnt from the process. The Commissioners then agreed to send postcards to the young people once they
had made their conclusions and explained the next stages of the process.
The workshop thus required prior organisation and structure, and this process was praised by the young people at
subsequent feedback sessions. Details of this are included in the User Guide that accompanies this report.
Workshops attendees
In the original research proposal it was suggested that the group of young people taking part in the focus group in
London during Stage Two of the research process would be the group that attended the engagement workshop.
However the research team were concerned that this could limit the diversity (such as of male and female) of the
workshop attendees and therefore sought to widen the basis of recruitment, including young people who had been
interviewed and contacted a local youth group working with young people who might have had experience of
offending. Participation in the workshops was limited to participants aged over 18 however. This was due to the fact
that travelling alone would be required to the venue, and also that the date for the workshop was during a weekday,
when time off school would be required for younger participants to attend. It was also felt that older young people
may have a wider range of experience of the youth justice system – from youth to adult services – and be better able
to reflect on these experiences than participants under the age of 18.
Young people were understandably quite reticent about attending workshops with Commissioners, especially given
the focus on crime and antisocial behaviour. In total, two young people were recruited from the local agency, three
from the London focus group, and four that had taken part in depth interviews. However on the day, only six of the
nine young people attended the workshop (two new to the research, three that had been interviewed and one that
had attended a focus group). Of these, there were three male and three females, with an age range of 18 – 25.
Whilst recruiting young people for the workshops a young person aged 15 whose family had experienced being
victims of very serious crime expressed an interest in being able to share their views on the youth justice system. To
ensure that their views were also incorporated into the engagement, a telephone interview took place with the young
person, focusing on the six themes discussed during the workshops. This data has been incorporated into the
findings.
There are 12 members of the Independent Commission for Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour, and the date of
the workshops were selected to be as convenient as possible for their attendance. Five Commissioners were
available to attend the first workshop and six, the engagement workshop with young people. Therefore there was a
good split between the number of Commissioners and young people in attendance although it was disappointing that
a greater number of both young people and Commissioners were not able to attend, especially given the extensive
efforts made during recruitment of young people. A key challenge of engagement processes such as this appears to
be the recruitment of people able, willing and appropriate to attend, that are available at a given time and date, as
explored further in the User Guide.
14
Ethics
Ethical conduct and adherence to Data Protection legislation and protocols take the utmost priority within social
research and engagement processes such as this. The design for this project (including the recruitment of young
people, the consent process, and gaining consent from parents or responsible adults to contact young people if
under the age of 16) was subject to scrutiny from the NatCen Research Ethics Committee. Membership of the
Committee consists of senior NatCen staff and research and policy experts from external agencies.
Structure of report
In Chapter Two, the circumstances of young people involved in crime and/or antisocial behaviour, and their motivation
for this involvement are discussed. How young people defined crime and antisocial behaviour is also outlined.
In Chapter Three, experiences of the youth justice system are explored. This includes experiences of contact with the
police, with courts and with agencies such as Youth Offending Teams (YOTs). The responses to crime that the
participants had experienced, including custodial sentences, fines, and electronic tagging are also reflected upon.
The workshops included discussion on police, courts and alternative sanctions such as restorative justice, and the
findings from these are included thematically within the Chapter.
In Chapter Four, breaking the cycle, the reflections of young people who have ceased involvement in crime and/or
antisocial behaviour, and participants’ views on how to prevent young people becoming involved in the youth justice
system are presented. Prevention was chosen as a plenary session discussion during the workshop and the
discussion is reported in this section. Views on criminal records, and whether they should be deleted or retained for
young people, discussed during the workshops, is also reported in this chapter.
Quotes are used throughout the report to illustrate relevant experiences of young people and their views regarding the
issue in focus. It is important to note that the findings are intended to reflect the views of the young people involved,
and have not been critically assessed by the authors. Thus the veracity of criticism or praise levelled at public bodies
by the young people is not questioned – rather the focus is on ensuring that views and opinions of young people
involved are reported as accurately as possible.
15
2. Understanding young people’s criminal
and antisocial behaviour
The young people who took part in the project were recruited through agencies that offer support for young people
with specific needs. This included foyers, YOTs, and youth engagement projects working with gang members. It is
therefore perhaps not surprising that they recounted examples of unsettled home lives and difficult circumstances.
The young people had experienced problems with drug and alcohol misuse, physical and sexual violence, difficulty
engaging in education and homelessness, for example. However there had also been periods in their lives of relative
stability, and not all came from highly chaotic circumstances.
The types of offences that the young people had committed included:
Arson and criminal damage
Assault, actual bodily harm (ABH) and grievous bodily harm (GBH)
Mugging, shoplifting and burglary
Drug dealing, possession of drugs and drug trafficking
Drunk and disorderly conduct
Kidnapping
Carrying offensive weapons
The young people had also experienced being accused of antisocial behaviour, such as ‘hanging around, drinking
alcohol and making noise’. Involvement in antisocial/offending behaviour tended to began with petty offences which
escalated into more serious offences and could result in young people getting involved in cycles of criminal activity
which became a way of life.
‘I’m thinking to myself what have I done? How did I get here?... I keep on doing the same circle; I keep on going
back to doing this.’
(Male, Persistent offender, 25)
The young people who had been victims or witnesses had experienced:
Being kidnapped, assaulted
Sexual abuse
Being mugged or burgled
Being bullied and threatened
Witnessing stolen goods being sold and drug dealing
Young people tended to have been offenders, victims and witnesses, indicating the complexity of crime – that is to
say, persistent offenders could also recount reporting being victims of crime to the police or being victims of serious
16
offences such as assault and kidnapping, that they had not reported, as well as having engaged in crime themselves.
The offences committed by the young people had usually come to the attention of the police and they had been
subject to contact with the youth justice system due to this offending behaviour. Offences witnessed or experienced
by victims were less likely to be reported to the police, although they were of significance to the young people for
defining their experiences of crime and antisocial behaviour. Details of their contact with the youth justice system are
discussed in Chapter Three.
In order to explore the young people’s experiences of and attitudes towards the Youth Justice System the interviews
included exploration of their understanding of the terms ‘crime’, ‘youth crime’ and ‘antisocial behaviour’ discussed in
section ‘Defining crime and antisocial behaviour’ below.
Defining crime and antisocial behaviour
In this section the young people’s understandings of the terms ‘crime’, ‘youth crime’ and ‘antisocial behaviour’ are outlined.
Crime
The young people’s conceptions of crime were grounded in their own personal experiences. They classified crime in
terms of either being offences they had committed, or offences that they were aware of through second hand
knowledge of others committing. The young people did not give examples of crimes that were outside of the realm of
personal experience for example, crimes such as financial white collar crime were particularly noticeable by their
absence of what constitutes crime.
The examples of crime given by the young people were:
Selling drugs
Burglary
Intimidation
Possession and usage of weapons
Theft
GBH
In the course of the interviews the young people were also asked to define the term Youth Crime which is discussed
below.
Youth crime
The young people varied in how familiar they were with the term ‘youth crime’. Those that were familiar discussed
how they had heard the term used by adults such as teachers and police officers, and in the media where the term
was often used in discussions around ‘hoodies’.
It was not a term that the young people would not use themselves, being more inclined to simply use the term ‘crime’
when referring to crime that young people committed.
17
Antisocial behaviour
Finally, the young people were asked to define the term ‘antisocial behaviour’ and describe whether, and how, they
thought the term might differ from the term ‘crime’. Whilst there was widespread familiarity with the term, the young
people would use it themselves (as was the case with the term ‘youth crime’ as discussed above).
The young people had become familiar with the term through contact with youth justice system professionals, (e.g.
police and YOT workers) and exposure to the term in media news reports and TV shows.
The types of behaviour classified as being antisocial were:
Joy riding
Causing a public disturbance
Graffiti
Damage to property
Racism
Drinking on the streets
The young people did not use the term antisocial behaviour to describe these behaviours but rather described them
in ways such as: young people ‘being a pain’, being ‘disruptive’ and ‘not respecting themselves or others’. They did
not tend to view these behaviours as being particularly serious, but rather saw them as types of ‘petty’ crime. The
younger participants in particular struggled to differentiate between what constituted crime and antisocial behaviour,
and determine what the difference between types of behaviours might be, and therefore tended to see these as
being the same thing. In contrast the older participants were able to distinguish between crime and antisocial
behaviour and did so in terms of the perceived seriousness of behaviours in terms of the amount of harm that could
result.
Enabling and constraining criminal and antisocial behaviour
Social networks
In this section the circumstances of the young people’s lives and how they may have underpinned their involvement
in antisocial and/or criminal behaviour are briefly outlined. These circumstances were shared, to a greater or lesser
degree, across the sample of young people interviewed (whether offenders, victims or witnesses) and may have
acted to both enable and motivate the crime and antisocial behaviour that young people were involved in or had
experienced.
The young people had experienced unstable environments in terms of their home life and relationships with parents
or other relatives/carers. A lack of stability in the young people’s living arrangements was characterised by swift and
repeated change. For example, relationships could break down with parents, leading to the young person living with
another family member or unrelated friend. If this relationship was a positive influence, this could lead to a relatively
settled period in their life, but it could also be the precursor to the young person’s domestic stability breaking down
entirely and entering foster care, or becoming homeless.
Participants noted that their relationships with parents were characterised by a lack of concern about the young
person’s well-being, and a lack of attention and support being provided. This could be because the parent was
absent from the young person’s life e.g. deceased, estranged or in prison, or could be associated with difficulties that
the parent exhibited, such as mental health problems and/or substance misuse.
18
‘I think it’s got to do with the parents a lot. And I know my parents care for me a lot and want the best of me but
some parents just ain’t there, kick them out and don’t give a shit about them. So they just think well if my mum and
dad don’t give a shit about me then why should I give a shit about anyone else. Because your family is the most
important thing, so once you know you’ve got your family behind you, you think I want to make my family proud.’
(Female, Witness, 18)
The emotional impact of a lack of stability on the young people who had offended was that they reported they lacked
positive role models, sources of support, or behavioural boundaries in their life. This lack of boundaries and role
models meant that the young people who had offended did not fear repercussions from within their social networks
for engaging in crime or antisocial behaviour. In addition a lack of role models in the young person’s life could result in
them not learning how to behave or respond appropriately to others in their day to day relationships. For example
resorting to aggressive and violent behaviour in situations where things had not gone as they had hoped.
‘...my head went. So, I pushed her on the settee and they classed that as assault, punching her out of my way
cause she wouldn’t let me out the door, and cause she wouldn’t let me out I smashed two windows, punched
one, kicked the other one and they both went through.’
(Male, Persistent offender, 17)
A lack of attention from significant others (such as parents/carers/adults in authority) could also result in young people
seeking it elsewhere. For example new social networks could be formed by becoming involved in gangs, which gave
a sense of belonging. The gang could perform functions that were not forthcoming from their family. Gang
membership could be the path into criminal activity. For example, a young female ex gang member approached by
an older, fellow gang member, to sell drugs, described feeling really pleased that someone had shown interest and
confidence in her to perform the task and described how she felt proud, responsible and grown up as a result of this.
However once involved in gang activity young people could also become increasingly at risk of victimisation from both
within and outside of the gang, and becoming increasingly involved in criminal activity.
‘You’re in a gang, the gang becomes your family and there’s a range of things you’ve got to do in a gang to move
up, which could involve robbing; it could involve drugs, selling drugs for someone; it could involve as well, if you’re
going to be in our gang, you’re going to prove it. You’ve got to go and stab her or stab him.’
(Female, Offender, 25)
The young people were aware of and had relationships with people who were themselves involved in antisocial
behaviour and/or criminal activity. Young people described how family members and friends were involved in crime,
such as buying and selling stolen property, or serving a custodial sentence. Close proximity to people involved in
criminal activity acted as both an enabler and motivator to the young people becoming involved themselves. For
example, participants described how their route into criminal activity was a direct result of the fact that a friend or
family member was involved in crime. Younger participants in particular explained they felt pressure from friends to get
involved in antisocial behaviour. The young persons desire to ‘be one of the gang’ and impress friends motivated
them to participate in such behaviour, even if they held reservations about doing so. The desire to ‘fit in’ and belong
to the group outweighed aversions to engage in such behaviour. Overall therefore the correlation between the young
people’s close proximity to antisocial behaviour and crime within their social networks, led to them becoming involved
with antisocial and/or criminal behaviour themselves.
Conversely, it could be actively avoiding involvement in criminal activity that led to relationships with family breaking
down, for example, leaving the parental home after a parent has been arrested or a family member had assaulted or
robbed the young person.
Social networks were therefore significant sources of exposure to, and a precursor to involvement in, crime or
antisocial behaviour, as an offender, victim or witness.
19
Case Study - Rebecca, 17 Rebecca has had an unsettled home life having moved on multiple occasions and lived with her mother and father
alternatively, and has spent periods living in temporary accommodation such as supported housing, B&B’s and
hostels. She is currently living with an aunt and is not happy living there.
Rebecca was expelled from school at the age of 13 and is currently not engaged in any form of education, training or
employment. She has also had drug and alcohol addiction problems.
Rebecca explained that the trigger point for her engaging in criminal activity (theft from a supermarket) at the age of
13 was that she had been kicked out of home by her father. Her father was going away for a while and did not want
her in the house in his absence. She was therefore homeless and found herself sleeping rough. She felt scruffy
without any access to clean clothes and wanted to go out but needed clean clothes to do so. She got drunk and
stole clothes from a local supermarket. She was arrested in the store.
Subsequently Rebecca has been involved in further criminal activity, mainly fighting incidents and has also been the
victim of a mugging. Her mother has lined up a job for her to work as a carer in the care home that her mother works
in as an activity organiser.
Socio-economic status and meaningful occupation
Participants (offenders, victims and witnesses) frequently described the environments they grew up in and/or were
currently living in as:
‘rough’ and run down;
lacking in facilities and services;
having high unemployment; and,
high levels of antisocial behaviour and criminal activity.
Therefore the young people experienced living in areas characterised as ‘deprived’. The young people also
highlighted there was a lack of things for them to do in the area, such as there not being adequate facilities and clubs
for young people. They also reported that there were limited opportunities for employment or education.
The young people’s accounts of their experiences at school, were overwhelmingly negative. Participants had been
suspended or expelled from school because of behavioural issues, and may have been attending school on a
reduced timetable or had left the educational system altogether. Therefore, whilst there were participants that were
engaging in meaningful occupation such as education, training or employment at the time of the interview, they had
often experienced periods of not being occupied. The impact of this was they had had a great deal of unoccupied
time. This, especially when combined with a lack of parental supervision/boundaries, could result in the young person
gravitating to others in a similar position and becoming involved in antisocial behaviour and/or criminal activity
because it provided a way of structuring their life and occupying their time.
Participant’s negative experiences of school or subsequent lack of employment or training could relate to the fact that
they had special educational needs which had not been adequately addressed. Participants reported having dyslexia
that was undiagnosed at school, and difficulties engaging with education or training because of additional problems in
their lives, such as substance misuse or abusive family members. They therefore lacked confidence in their abilities
and considered themselves unable to engage in education. The fact that a limited number of options were open to
20
these young people could result in them being drawn to antisocial behaviour or crime as activities through which they
could perform well and develop self esteem.
It is necessary to point out at this juncture that not all young people who have social networks that involve a close
proximity to crime or that come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds will necessarily become involved in crime or
antisocial behaviour. Indeed being labelled in such as way was also a complaint of the young people. Young people
spoke of feeling discriminated against by adults, which led to their behaviour being deemed to be antisocial or
criminal when in fact they were actually just ‘acting normal’. Being asked to move by police when ‘hanging around’
was cited as an example of this. They therefore felt labelled and perceived to be troublemakers for engaging in
activities they thought were normal for young people. This was also cited as a reason for getting involved – ‘people
think you are doing it anyway’.
The context of the young people’s social networks and life chances therefore acted to enable crime or antisocial
behaviour, but was not necessarily a direct cause of this behaviour.
Normalisation of criminal and antisocial behaviour
The previous sections have outlined the contextual factors in the participants’ lives. This context enabled both
offending behaviour and the likelihood of becoming a victim or witness of such behaviour.
In relation to social networks and living in deprived areas the young people who had offended stressed exposure to
criminal activity at a young age. Thus witnessing crime and/or being engaged in antisocial or criminal activity was just
‘everyday life’. Along with this high level of awareness and familiarity with criminal activity was the perception that
‘everybody’s doing it’ and crime therefore became somewhat normalised.
Those who had offended were acutely aware of the impact their environment could have on their behaviour, and
reflected that, had they grown up in a more affluent area, surrounded by people in employment/education rather than
engaged in criminal activity, they may not have ‘ended up’ offending.
Participants explained that getting involved in antisocial behaviour and or criminal activities (such as drinking and
taking drugs, stealing cars, hanging around in a gang etc) could be fun and relieve boredom, providing a source of
both excitement and escapism that had been lacking from their everyday life. For example, young people described
the ‘excitement’ involved in mugging people, or discussed the ‘thrill’ of being engaged in illegal activity and getting
away with it.
Engaging in crime or antisocial behaviour was also described as a rational choice. Criminal activity could provide
income and status. In the context of their lives (and the fact that the young people had few resources to draw upon)
being ‘successful’ at drug dealing or mugging, could provide income and heighten self esteem – they were ‘good at
something’. The combination of having both money and a reputation for engaging in crime could engender respect
from peers. For example, a prolific offender, who had served a prison sentence for serious offences, succinctly
described that each time he was able to gain housing, become rehabilitated and cease crime he found he had
‘nothing’ in his life. He had a low income, no employment opportunities and felt less attractive to women. By engaging
in crime, such as drug dealing, he could generate an income, occupy his time and have a high status within the area
he lived in.
‘I think we’re living in a society now where crime has become more glamorous amongst the youths, it’s like there’s
a lot of youths praising one another for negative behaviour… people are like ‘oh yeah, I’ve got an ASBO’ type of
thing seen as, oh a bit macho… I think there’s a lot of people who use crime to kind of big themselves up.’
(Female, Offender, 24)
Therefore, within the context of social networks either fractured or embedded within crime and antisocial behaviour,
and being in a low socio economic position with a sense of few opportunities being available, crime and antisocial
21
behaviour could provide respite, relief and resources. It thus became described as a rational and normalised choice.
This type of association with crime – as both a thrill and rational choice has also been extensively explored in
literature2. In this context, the chance of becoming a victim or witness also increased.
It is important to note that young people involved in the research had also ceased to be involved in criminal and
antisocial behaviour or attempted to avoid it. This section has outlined the context and motivation for criminal or
antisocial behaviour and breaking this cycle is explored in Chapter Four. In the next Chapter the contact with the
youth justice system that the young people recounted and the findings from the deliberative workshop sessions
regarding reform of this system, are presented.
Case Study A persistent offender (selling drugs) explained that his dyslexia was not picked up at school and he had ‘messed
about’ rather than asking for help as he was ‘too proud’ to do so. He left school without any GCSEs. He was good
at drama and after school went to Drama College but could not complete essays and as a result of this was
expelled from the course. His dyslexia meant that he could not complete job applications, and the dyslexia was not
detected by the Job Centre. He described how becoming involved in criminal activity became a necessity in order
to meet his practical and emotional needs of self sufficiently escaping poverty and generating an income to support
himself and his child.
2 Craine, S. (1997) ‘The ‘Black Magic Roundabout’: Cyclical transitions, Social Exclusion and alternative careers’, MacDonald, R. (ed) Youth the
‘Underclass’ and Social Exclusion (Routledge: London).
Katz, J. (1988) The Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil (New York: Basic Books).
Lyng, S. (2005) ‘Edgework and the Risk-Taking Experience’, Lyng, S. (ed.) Edgework: The Sociology of Risk Taking (London, Routledge) 3 - 16.
22
3. Young people’s experiences of the
youth justice system
In this section young people’s experiences of the youth justice system are examined. In each section, if relevant, the
findings from the interviews, focus groups and workshops are reported in turn.
As was noted in the previous section, the young people had taken part in, witnessed or become victims of a range of
offences. In relation to this the young people’s experiences of the youth justice system were diverse and ranged from
standard interactions with police officers, such as ‘stop and search’ through to time spent in custody and accusations
of police brutality against them.
Perhaps unsurprisingly given the predominant role the police have in promoting public safety the young people had
particularly extensive experiences of contact with the police. They also had experienced going to court, custodial
sentences and other sanctions such as electronic tagging and fines. The concept of restorative justice was
discussed primarily during the focus groups and workshops, and findings from these discussions are reported in
‘Additional sanctions’, below. The final section of this chapter outlines contact with agencies of the youth justice
system that the young people had had, such as probation officers and Youth Offending Teams (YOTs).
Police
The young people had first hand personal experiences of contact with the police and drew on second hand accounts
from friends or family members when explaining attitudes and views of the police. Their attitudes and perceptions of
the police focused on the following elements:
the nature of communication with police;
the transparency of police procedures and processes; and,
a perception that young people were discriminated against on the basis of age by the police.
Nature of communication
The young people expressed varying levels of satisfaction regarding how the police interacted and communicated
with them. Issues reported that led to dissatisfaction included: the police communicating with the young people in a
manner which was experienced as inappropriate and/of offensive; and, the police not being explicit about procedures
and processes when arresting or questioning young people or working with victims/witnesses.
Young people explained that officers sometimes spoke to them inappropriately, such as swearing, or they perceived
that officers had acted in an arrogant, aggressive way towards them. In contrast, when police officers did not shout,
and instead spoke to the young people ‘normally’, young people felt that they were ‘getting along well’ and did not
feel intimidated.
‘There are some policeman that…will go round and be friendly with the young people…then there’s more chance
that young people are gonna respect the police back and… will not wanna get in trouble.’
(Male, Offender and victim, 17)
It is perhaps unsurprising that young people may have reported negative experiences of how the police treated them
when being arrested, having committed an offence, however there were negative perceptions reported from victims
23
and witnesses too. This included feeling uninformed by the police during investigations, difficulties contacting the
police and a lack of guidance or support after the incident.
These perceptions – whether verified or not - had a significant influence on young people’s attitudes about the police
and in turn, whether young people would report offences in the future or cooperate as witnesses. Therefore how
police respond to young people in every circumstance can have a long term effect on how young people perceive
the police and engage with them, and the trust they have in the youth justice system in general.
‘I grew up hating the police, why? Because they used to pick on me and stop me, it started from a young age,
now I think that really made me hate them. I never used to call police when I used to get beaten up, I didn’t like
them and then it led me to hating them, to start breaking rules.’
(Male, Persistent offender, 22)
Negative attitudes about the police were also discussed by the young people during the focus groups. The
overarching issue was the sense young people had that the police stereotyped them as being ‘bad’. As a result
young people felt that there was room for improvement in the relationships between police and young people, so that
both could understand each other better. It is worth noting however that young people had contact with the police
whilst being investigated for committing antisocial behaviour or crime, and it may be unsurprising that they felt a
degree of antagonism to the police.
‘One thing the police need to realise is even young people with hoodies; we are the public as well. Everyone’s
acting like cos you wear a hood and you wear dark clothes that you’re not part of the community as well.’
(Male, Focus group participant)
‘They’re actually targeting us, and we’re like the young ones of the community, so we’re going to be the older
members of the community at one stage... they’re just making us more and more biased by going on like that,
because we could be trying to do good things, but the way we dress, they assume that we are not...’
(Male, Focus group participant)
Information and procedures
The second issue that was important was how informed young people felt they were by police about procedures and
processes. In situations where young people felt that they were not being informed about what was going on, or they
had been misinformed about next steps after an incident, this was experienced as confusing and frustrating. In
particular young people who had been victims of crime reported feeling disappointed in cases where they did not feel
that the options open to them about taking the matter forward had been well explained.
In contrast young people reported positively on their experiences with police in situations where they felt properly
listened to, and had had next steps clearly and fully explained to them.
Case Study
A young offender aged 17 (arrested on suspicion of burglary) and also a victim (of mugging) described feeling
extremely frustrated and confused when he was put in a holding cell for over eight hours without being informed
about what was happening and how long he would be there for. He felt that the police should have explained what
was going on much more explicitly.
24
Positive experiences with the police were also reported by the young people. These tended to focus on the police
being polite, helpful and communicative with the young person, even if they had committed an offence. Young
people reported the police being ‘alright’, ‘quite nice’ and ‘helpful’ when they reported crimes and had been kept
informed about what was happening.
Perceptions of discrimination
Another factor that played a role in young people’s perceptions of the police was that they felt, whether it is the case
or not, that police officers held negative stereotypes of young people generally and particularly young people who had
previously been involved in criminal activity. They felt police treated young people in a substantially different way to
how they might treat other, older members of the community.
‘…with adults it’s different because an adult can turn round and say ‚don’t talk to me like that‛, but a child can’t say
something like that. Like I’ve said it to ‘em, and they’re like ‚oh you’re the child, I’m the adult‛, be quiet and that.’
(Female, Persistent offender, 14)
‘If it was a businessman they wouldn’t have said that, if it was someone, like I don’t know, who were more
important or that could actually force it a bit more. Like if it happened to my Dad, I think someone would have
come down, but not to me.’
(Male, Offender and victim, 19 – describing how he felt dissatisfied with the police’s lack of
response to his being robbed)
This was noted particularly with regard to ‘stop and search’. Young people reported that this often occurred and they
had mixed views regarding this. On the one hand they understood that this could be a way of protecting them and
nothing to be concerned about if they were doing nothing wrong. On the other, they felt this particularly singled out
young people and allowed the police the opportunity to assert their ‘power’ over young people, even when they had
not committed a crime or antisocial behaviour.
‘I think it’s a good thing, I don’t mind the way they do stop and search you, because in the future if I am a bad
person, if I am doing something bad, I am going to be more careful you know if I have been stopped one time, so
next time if I want to do something I am going to think about not to do it because I am going to be stopped and
searched like, it does make sense.’
(Male, Victim, 20)
‘Just because they’re young and they may wear what the typical antisocial people wear, they stop them straight
away. And it's like what are you stopping them for? And they go on like they’re God’s gift and you can’t answer
them back and you can’t say nothing to defend yourself. And I don’t have a problem with them but I mean myself I
don’t really like them, I just think they think they’re superior and the best thing ever.’
(Female, Witness, 18)
The police force may face a real challenge in overcoming young people’s negative perceptions. Negative
experiences with the police acted to promote a sense of antagonism that young people had about the police, and
alienated young people from feeling they could rely on or trust the youth justice system in general. Therefore the
manner in which the police communicated with young people was important in each interaction they had – even
those which may have been particularly challenging for the police, such as a young person resisting arrest – because
these interactions have longer term implications.
Due to this finding, reforms that may assist in promoting positive relationships between police and young people were
a particular focus of the workshop discussion.
25
Engagement workshop – youth and police relations As outlined above, during the research it became apparent that young people had extensive experiences of contact
with the police. Although positive experiences were reported, such as the police being polite, helpful and
communicative, accounts of young people’s contact with the police were predominately negative. Exploring strategies
for improving youth-police relations was identified as a key objective for the deliberative process, both from the
research findings and by the Commissioners during the first workshop.
At the workshop attended only by young people they were asked to select an issue that they could discuss together
as a group in order for them to practice talking through these issues and familiarise themselves with each other’s
views and experiences. Youth-police relations were highlighted as an area that everyone would have experience of
whether they were a victim, witness, or offender and therefore as a good area for them to initially discuss, before
breaking out into smaller groups.
Initially the discussion centred on young people’s personal experiences of the police, and there was, unsurprisingly,
overlap with the attitudes and perceptions that came out of the research interviews. Police officers swearing and
being rude to young people, not taking time to listen or hear both sides of the story, or try to resolve the situation
without arresting a young person, were discussed as negative perceptions and experiences with the police. ‘Stop
and search’ was criticised as being a means for police to abuse their power and target young people on the basis of
appearance (for example being stopped when wearing a track suit but not when wearing jeans), and created a barrier
to improving youth-police relations. However, it was acknowledged this was not necessarily the attitude of all police
officers and also that maintaining police authority is important. Thus there is a tension and also support for the role the
police have from young people.
Young people also spoke about individuals taking responsibility for their own actions and not to retaliating if they are
stopped or questioned by police officers. Although there was agreement that this reduces animosity between young
people and the police, it was felt that by the young people that persistent unfair treatment from the police could
eventually make someone reach breaking point:
‘…every time they see you, they stop you, and then the more they don’t find nothing, the more they want to do
something about it. You can laugh it off so many times, but then in the end you’re just going to snap.’
(Male, Workshop)
Young people and commissioners
The aim of the afternoon session with the young people and the Commissioners was to try and identify strategies for
improving youth – police relations. The group consisted of three Commissioners and three young people who were
asked to come up with ideas to do this. A series of prompt cards were available to support the discussion, with
suggestions written on them that could be agreed or disagreed upon. However it was not necessary to use the
prompts because a number of suggestions were put forward spontaneously, during the discussion. Four key
suggestions the group deliberated on are outlined below.
Training for police officers on working with young people: it was suggested there needs to be bespoke training on
interacting with young people and responding to them in various situations, for example, how to respond if young
people are aggravating the police or appear upset and nervous. It was noted that other professions, such as
teachers, receive specialist training for working with young people, and the same could be provided to police
officers in order for them to develop a better understanding of young people and their development. Young
people delivering or being involved in the training was suggested as an option during the young people’s
workshop, as this would give the police an insight into how young people felt treated.
26
Diversity of police officers: people with different backgrounds including ex-offenders could be given the
opportunity to become police officers. It was suggested that there could be openness about police officers
backgrounds (i.e. if they have been ex offenders) as this would help to break down barriers and make the police
appear more ‘normal’. However, it was acknowledged that the appropriateness of this would depend on the
nature of their offence and their role in the police force. Similarly, having local police officers who knew local
people would make it easier for them to relate to as they seemed more on ‘their level’.
Members of community acting as intermediaries: having a respected member of the community working with the
police and acting as a voice for other local people could help to change negative perceptions of the police as it
would instil trust in others and improve communication between the two groups:
‘I think if the police can get on our good side then the community will get on their good side. Because people in
my community respect me, I know that I’ve got the power to change people’s points of views… I think they might
need people in the area that people look up to to break that ice…I think really and truly the police need, not they
should, they need people like us and people in the community to be their face.’
(Female, Workshop)
It was also suggested that young people could have involvement in special constable volunteer roles, when police
need to engage with other young people.
Police force investment in communities: two types of investment were identified – time and money – that the
police force could or do provide within communities. Increased social interaction between young people and the
police could help to build trust and respect as it would humanise the police:
‘If …the police played [football against] the boys from [the area] in mixed teams, it’s like they’re not police officers,
they’re in their own clothes, they’re normal people, and you’d get on better. Then maybe when you see them in
their uniform you’d be, oh alright, because you’ve had an experience with them when they’re not at work, when
they’re actually living a normal life’
(Male, Workshop)
Similarly, the police investing money into an area to improve local resources could create positive images as this
created a sense that they were giving something back. However, there needed to be an awareness that this had
come from the police. An example was given during the discussion of police investing money in a local project for
preventing youth crime, but not associating their name with it, as they felt it would deter people from attending. The
young people were surprised to hear the police invested in the community in this way and felt this was very positive.
This pointed to the fact that the police may already be implementing some of the suggestions made, and that a
greater awareness of this, or more comprehensive and consistent ‘rolling out’ of positive strategies already in place,
may be what is required.
The police were reported by the young people to be viewed in a more positive light by primary school students, as
they attend sports days, give talks or present certificates. Views become negative in secondary school as the police
become an enforcing presence. Bringing the police into secondary schools in a non-threatening way and for positive
reasons was also recommended as a way of building youth-police relations.
Thus it was discussed during the engagement workshop that improving communication between the police and
young people, and allowing for the development of a better understanding of each other, could be vital for developing
positive youth-police relations. Interaction between police and young people either through social events, training or
education could help to bridge this gap. This could help to encourage young people to turn to the police when they
are threatened or to report crimes.
27
Attending court
Young people who had attended court reported fairly ambivalent views. Court was felt to be a necessary stage to ‘get
through’ if they were being convicted of an offence and the structure of the court system was not something the
young people could change.
However there were participants, particularly those who were younger, that reported feeling anxious and nervous prior
to, and while in, court; and feeling unsupported through the process, with court proceedings ‘going over their head’.
In such cases there was a distinct need for both the court process, and what the possible punishments that the
young person may receive, to be explained and discussed with the young person prior to their court hearing. In
contrast the young people had tended to learn about the process of court through experience rather than through
briefing in advance.
‘It was quite scary really. I went in there with my Dad, but it was scary, yes! You don’t know what to do; you just feel
lost…you feel that you can’t do anything. You feel like it’s a bunch of people that can control your future, but you
don’t really know how powerful they are…they could have done anything with my future, I could have gone to
prison or anything could have happened to me’
(Male, offender, victim and witness, 15)
‘The people they’re always like running about everywhere so you don’t really know where to go and ask anyone, I
think like if you’ve never been there before, like the first time I went there it was very hard to know where to go and
that, but like when you know about it then it’s a lot easier’
(Male, offender and victim, 19)
The length of time that young people could spend on remand, waiting for an offence to be brought to court was also
criticised, and could take months or even years. This could have significant negative impact on the young person
involved because they felt unable to ‘move on’ with their life whilst waiting to attend court. They were unsure about
what punishment they would receive and if this might impact on employment or training they wanted to access. They
were also worried about having to disclose their forthcoming court attendance to people who were not aware of this
and this could also act as a barrier to accessing new activities, such as training. It was therefore suggested that court
appearances should occur as quickly as possible after the young person is charged.
Young people also suggested that it was a positive aspect of the system if they did not have to attend court for minor
offences. There were mixed views regarding serious offences however, and it was noted that people should ‘face up’
to the offences they have committed, and court could function as a good place for them to begin to do so.
Young people who had been victims also reported negative experiences of attending court as a witness – based on
their perceptions of what it would be like. In one case, a victim of mugging decided to not attend court at the trial
because he was worried about seeing the offender and was fearful of repercussions. It was suggested that witnesses
should not have to attend court on the same day or in the same place as the offender and instead should be able to
give evidence separately in another building or on another day. They would therefore feel safer and anonymous and
be more likely to attend.
‘I am kind of afraid because them things don’t finish, because the boys come out of prison… it’s still in their mind,
like they want to take revenge or something like that. It’s not me; I just want no trouble in my way. I just want a
peaceful life’
(Male, victim, 20)
In addition to these factors, young people also commented on how they had been treated in court (e.g. how the
judicial staff had spoken to them) and whether they felt justice had been done. This related to attitudes about which
offences should be dealt with in court (e.g. that ‘petty’ offences such as drinking in public spaces should not go to
court), attitudes about the fairness of punishments given (e.g. the length of sentences, size of a fine) and the nature of
court proceedings (e.g. that taking the background of young offenders into consideration in court was important - and
that this should be extended to over 18’s).
28
‘I went in there I thought like they’re just going to look down their noses at me and like see what they want to see,
but they did actually listen to me so I was quite surprised.’
(Male, offender and victim, 19)
Engagement workshop – courts
The research interviews and focus groups highlighted the court process as an issue to be explored further during the
deliberative process. Two of the young people who had experience of the court system volunteered to discuss this in
a small group setting at the first workshop (attended only by young people). The discussion provided the opportunity
for the young people to become familiar with each other’s experiences and views and also to identify key areas of
discussion or questions that they would like to raise with the Commissioners in the second workshop.
The fairness of the court process was criticised for the following reasons:
Court sentencing unjust;
Variation in judges’ empathy; and,
Discretionary powers of judges.
Court sentencing was seen as being somewhat unjust in that certain categories of criminals were perceived to be
treated more leniently than other types of criminals e.g. offenders committing street robbery getting longer sentences
than white collar crime offenders, even though much larger sums of money were involved in the latter.
‘If it’s a street robber you’re kind of like looked at as a bit of a scumbag, whereas if you’re a fraudster you’re looked
at as somebody a little bit special.’
(Male, workshop)
There was perceived to be variation in the degree to which different judges would display empathy towards
defendants, and be willing to take a defendant’s background into consideration in their rulings. There was a
perception that whilst it was difficult for judges to be empathetic to defendants (because of their very different social
standings) it was important for them to do so. Some judges would take the time to read reports and give thorough
consideration to a defendant’s background whilst others would not. It was considered a positive thing when judges
had acted empathetically towards defendants by at least taking character reports into consideration. In addition, the
judge directly addressing defendants and giving them the chance to speak for themselves was also praised. The
caveat to this was that if defendants were to be given the chance to speak in court that they should be given
guidance as to how to suitably do so, for example in terms of what to say so that they were able to present their case
appropriately.
The final matter discussed on the subject of judges was the perception that judges had too much discretion to
decide on sentences. This discretionary power was deemed to be unfair in that it could lead to too much variation in
sentencing depending on which judge made the ruling. A specific hypothetical example was given of a judge whose
daughter had been run over and killed by a drunk driver and how this judge was perceived to come down very
harshly on anyone who had committed a driving offence.
‘if they had some lower class people as a judge or whatever, then they might be a little bit more understanding,
because at the end of the day, you can’t live in a million pound house and understand what it is like to live in a
council flat can you?’
(Male, workshop)
29
Commissioners and young people
The joint session between young people and Commissioners was structured around an exercise, working through a
series of statements about the court process, deliberating the extent to which people agreed or disagreed with them
and then exploring people’s reasons for this. The statements were developed from the discussions that took place
between the Commissioners at the first workshop.
The following statements were discussed:
Going to court is a horrible experience that stops young people wanting to commit crime again.
Young people understand what happens in court.
It is fair that young people who are accused of crime have to go to court to decide if they are guilty or not.
Instead of going to court, it would be better to meet with the adults and the victim to discuss why the crime was committed and what should be done to make up for it.
During the course of the discussions the young people shared their thoughts from the discussion which had taken
place during their earlier workshop. The discussions and suggestions which resulted are outlined in turn below.
Court acting as a deterrent to young people committing crime
Whilst going to court was considered a daunting experience by the young people they felt that it would not
necessarily function as a deterrent to all young people who committed crime. Rather it was felt that it would act as a
deterrent to some, whilst for others, perhaps those committing more serious offences, going to court would have a
very limited preventative effect. This was considered especially so for those who saw going to court as a status
symbol for their criminal status.
‘some people they’ll go to court and that’ll be it; it’ll scare the life out of them and they won’t be involved in crime
but then other people they kind of see it as a statement or something, like they’ll be to their mates ‘oh I’ve got court
tomorrow, I’ve got this and that’, it depends on what kind of person you are really’
(Male, workshop)
Young people’s understanding of court proceedings
It was felt that young people did not have a good understanding of court proceedings; the participants had not been
clear about who court personnel were, about what they should do in court (e.g. whether to stand up or not) and
about what to say in court. There was a perception that things had not been explained adequately enough by their
solicitors prior to attending court, especially with regards to how to plead in court, and the implications of pleading
guilty or not guilty. The young people felt that guidance needed to be clear and explicit as at this point they were often
feeling anxious and confused and therefore not necessarily in a state of mind that was conducive to taking on board
the complexities of the court process.
‘I think really, when you go into court, maybe someone should address you and tell you your rights and what’s
going to happen and who’s who’
(Female, workshop)
The issue of the length of time that young people had to wait before their case came to trial was also discussed. The
young people stressed to the Commissioners that they felt this could be far too long and that this time spent waiting
was ‘wasted’ time during which a person’s ability and motivation to engage in education and start planning for their
future was severely restricted.
‘...if the process is bit quicker you can go there [prison] and you can for instance go into education or something
and you’ve still got a bit of willpower to actually come out and do something whereas if you’re always sitting there
waiting, waiting, you never know what’s going to happen, you can’t actually start to plan what to do in the future’
(Male, workshop)
30
Whether it is fair to go to court
It was considered generally fair that young people should have to go to court. The exceptions to this were in cases
where the young person is especially young, or the matter a relatively minor offence.
The major issue discussed in relation to how young people should be judged in court was the extent to which the
defendant’s background and the context in which they had committed the offence was taken into account. The
young people described their own experiences and how these had led them to the conclusion that more weight
should be given to the context in which the offence took place and the defendant’s explanation of their actions.
‘There’s always a reason why someone does something, whether it’s stealing something or whether it’s fighting
with someone. There’s always a reason behind it; no-one’s going to go out there for nothing and steal or fight with
someone’
(Male, workshop)
The final matter discussed in relation to the fairness of young people going to court was how fairly magistrates
engaged and judged the young people before them. A discussion took place around how able a lay bench is to
understand the law properly and make judgements that were fair, as judges. The view expressed by the young
people was that they would prefer to go to a professional judge than a lay bench as they felt more confident in their
legal knowledge, felt they would get treated more fairly and be more likely to receive justice.
Alternatives to going to court
As mentioned above the young people felt that going to court was the correct setting for serious crimes but that for
less serious offences, such as noise disturbances, young people should not go to court. In such circumstances it
was felt to be more appropriate for a restorative justice-type approach to be taken, for example the young person
having to conduct community work.
The Commissioners put forward the suggestion that less serious offences could be dealt with in more informal, less
intimidating, settings where the crime would still be taken seriously but it would be easier for the young person to be
talk. The young people were enthusiastic about this suggestion and felt that it would address many of the problems
they had identified as existing with the present court system. It was felt that victims should have the option of being
present at such proceedings but that this choice should be extended to the defendant i.e. if they did not want to see
the victim they should not be obliged to. Therefore it was suggested that if such measures were to be introduced
they would need to be carefully considered in light of both the victims, and offenders, rights and well being.
‘I think if the victim wants to see that person they should have the right, but on the other hand if the person has
committed an offence, I think they should also have the right, if they want to see the victim or they don’t want to
see the victim. I don’t think personally it should be forced, and the reason I’m saying that is maybe that person
that’s committed that crime was under the influence of alcohol or drugs and now reality’s hit them. They could see
the victim, go back to their cell and commit suicide.’
(Female, workshop)
Custodial sentences
Young people’s views in the research on custodial sentences were gained from both first hand experience and from
family and friends who had served sentences.
Young people who had experienced being in custody described this as unpleasant. The challenges of being in prison
were described in terms of the emotional and physical demands of being in a poor environment. For example the
young people described limited access to showers. Similarly stressful was the emotional impacts of being in prison,
31
such as feeling a loss of identity, having limited privacy and being exposed to ‘shocking’ incidents such as prisoners
self harming or committing suicide. In relation to this matter young people discussed how they felt the staffing levels in
prison could be inadequate and that this could result in officers viewing medication (and sedation) of inmates as a
viable means of maintaining order and control.
‘There’s not enough staff to handle all these girls, so the best thing to do is give them the medication and lock
them in. It makes their job easier. That’s how it is in prison, two officers on a landing with thirty-odd girls, do you
know what I mean? They just want an easy life and their easy life is you being locked in and have your medication.’
(Female, Offender, 25) It was felt by the young people who had been in custody that this could act as a deterrent to being involved in further
criminal activity upon release. Even being held in a holding cell after being arrested, and then released, was reported
as distressing and something that a young person would not like to happen again.
However persistent offenders also discussed ‘getting used’ to being in prison. To cope with a custodial sentence
young people reported that they had to ‘toughen up’ and that the prison environment functioned as a criminal
networking service. They had met people in prison who were also involved in crime, which further normalised certain
criminal acts to them.
Finally it was also reported there was inadequate support provided to prepare prisoners for release and due to this,
they may return to crime when they completed their sentence. This was an important consideration because the
young people identified time spent in prison could be a potential opportunity; if support was inadequate or non-
existent, it was felt that the prison had functioned merely as a holding place rather than as a space and time for
rehabilitation. Support could be provided to address needs such as behavioural, educational or substance misuse
issues and generally put the young person’s life ‘back on track’. For example time in prison could be used to study, in
order to improve employment prospects upon release.
‘It did me the world of good at the time. It sorted my head out a bit, you know? Obviously, being so drunk and
drugged up all the time and being so clean for so long did do me a lot of good. I got some [educational
qualifications] behind me… and I started training in the gym. I found out I liked training and that. I got in touch with
my brother who I hadn’t spoke to for nearly five years.’
(Male, Persistent offender, 20)
Length and value of sentences
It was suggested that sentences should be dependent on the progress the people made in prison rather than the
offence they had committed. This included prisoners having to complete a qualification before being released from
prison. This was deemed particularly important for young people who were serving a custodial sentence as this could
provide an opportunity for them to ‘turn their lives around’.
However custodial sentences were also criticised as a means to address all but the most serious of offences,
because time in prison took young people out of society. They would not be able to continue with their education or
may lose their accommodation. Therefore custodial sentences were not deemed to be useful for addressing youth
crime of a less serious nature unless they were accompanied with a great deal of support and progression for the
offender to assist them when they were released to ensure that they did not engage in further criminal activity and
end up returning to prison.
‘So when I left [name of prison] I was actually told by an officer ‚I’ll see you soon‛, and that to me was confirmation
really that the system sets you up to fail…’
(Female, Offender, 24)
32
There was support for custodial sentences for those who had committed serious offences. Interestingly a young
person who had experienced being the victim of a serious crime also supported the idea that short sentences for
petty crimes are not effective. They used the example of G20 protestors being held in prison (which was felt to be
unnecessary and unfair) whilst young people who commit serious crimes such as assault or even murder can avoid
prison sentences due to having good defence lawyers or due to circumstances being taken into account. Therefore
from the victim’s perspective there was a desire for more transparent and consistent sentencing and an
acknowledgment that short sentences for non-serious offences were unnecessary.
Participants in the focus group discussion also felt that prison was an ineffective measure to address the causes of
crime, and had the potential to increase young people’s knowledge levels of crime. In addition, unless adequate
support was provided in prison, and upon offender release, young people could return to crime:
‘They need to just work with people and then that will help stop it if they actually do something about it rather than
just go to prison, even for three months or a year or whatever it is. They ain’t doing nothing. What you’re doing,
you’re going into prison full of criminals and learning more stuff in there. So you’re going to come out without
anything and be back to square one, you’ll just do the same thing, it gets you nowhere’
(Male, Focus group participant)
Engagement workshop - custodial sentences
The research process highlighted key areas regarding custodial sentences that could be subject to further scrutiny
during the deliberative process. During the initial workshop with the Commissioners, custody was also raised as a
priority area the Commissioners would like to explore with young people, although it was felt by the Commissioners
that it would be of most value if the young people had experienced custodial sentences themselves.
Two of the young people who had experience of being in custody volunteered to discuss their experiences to the
Commissioners. They then had the opportunity to discuss these experiences with each other during the workshop
attended only by young people. The discussion provided the opportunity for the young people to become familiar
with each other’s experiences and views and also to identify key areas or questions that they would like to raise with
the Commissioners in the second workshop.
The young people discussed that key areas to highlight to the Commissioners included the type of support that they
had received while in custody and on release, and the variation in this support they had experienced. They also
discussed the futility of short sentences and that being in prison exposes young people to negative influences and to
entering a ‘revolving door’ of short sentences, in and out of prison. Finally the young people highlighted that staff
(such as probation workers) appeared to have high case loads which limited the ability they had to support young
people who had been released.
Commissioners and young people
In the engagement workshop, two young people and two Commissioners came together for a session to discuss
their views on, and experiences of, custody. They were asked to identify three key issues that the Commission
should take into account regarding custody that they agreed upon, and also an issue that they had disagreed upon.
Initially the discussion centred on personal experiences – the Commissioners had visited prisons, and the young
people had experienced custodial sentences. Recounting these experiences was useful because it highlighted the
variation in services and support that young people in custody can have. For example in contrast to very limited, poor
quality support that one young person had experienced on release, the other young person in the discussion group
had been part of a new ‘flagship’ scheme at their prison. This meant that they had a dedicated resettlement officer,
allocated to them while in custody, who continued to be in contact after release. The worker managed the young
person’s needs holistically – in this case they ensured that the young person could continue studying towards the
33
credits they required to complete their college course and supported them to apply for university before the end of
their sentence.
Three priority areas were agreed upon between the commissioners and young people regarding custodial sentences
were:
Resettlement support: there needs to be high quality, consistent support in place for young people when they
leave custody. The staff should be highly trained and positive in their outlook so that young people do not feel
demoralised and that they have few options open to them on release. A mentor figure was identified as being
particularly important, and also providing a consistent source of resettlement support (i.e. a support worker that
can remain in contact after release from prison). However it was noted that this type of support requires
investment and could be viewed as expensive. This view could be offset by illustrating how expensive repeat
offending is in contrast.
Reduction in remand: holding young people in remand for all but the most serious of offences (sexual
offences/homicide) was deemed inappropriate. Remand can last months and during this time young people are
unable to access courses or pastoral support until their sentence begins.
Alternatives to short sentences coupled with support for underlying problems: short sentences (and remand)
exposes young people to further crime and disrupts their lives. Short sentences can become part of a ‘revolving
door’ in and out of prison. It was acknowledged by the young people that custodial sentences can be necessary,
but this was not felt to be the case for minor offences. Alongside alternatives to custody, support for underlying
problems that trigger offending such as drug or alcohol use, should be in place.
The group were asked to identify an issue on which they had disagreed upon regarding custody. However they were
in broad agreement. Instead, the Commissioners expressed surprise to have discovered positive schemes in place
such as that recounted by one of the young people, that actually worked well to support people resettle after being in
custody. This highlighted that, with the right support, young people in custody can be supported and rehabilitated
successfully.
The young person in question was challenged by the Commissioners for not being ‘typical’ of other young offenders.
However, whilst the young person conceded they had a higher level of education than some of the young people
they served their sentence with, they also reported that these young people are now in college, school or employed.
Therefore they felt that with the right support young people from a variety of backgrounds could be successfully
helped to rehabilitate. The young people argued that the potential the young people have is overlooked once they are
in prison.
Overall the group was in strong agreement regarding the three key areas identified.
During the larger feedback discussion the point was made that a balance between the needs of young people who
have offended, and young people who have not offended but also have support needs, must be taken into account.
It may seem unfair to provide quality support services to young offenders, if young people who have not offended find
these difficult to access. This point returns to the suggestion made by one of the young people of the importance of
cost benefit analysis. If it can be proven that young people being supported to resettle, reduces reoffending and the
associated costs, despite the higher investment required for the support services, then this cost could be justified.
For example, in the US, supported accommodation for homeless people with drug dependency was revolutionised
when a cost benefit analysis illustrated that is was cost effective (as well, it could be argued, morally right) to provide
supported accommodation for the most chaotic of the population rather than allow them to remain in a cycle of short
prison sentences, rough sleeping and emergency hospital admissions3.
3 Culhane, D., Metraux, S. and Hadley, T., (2002) : Public service reductions associated with placement of homeless persons with severe mental
illness in supportive housing, Housing Policy Debate, 13, 1, 107-163.
34
Additional sanctions
The young people interviewed had experienced a range of additional sanctions after being in contact with the youth
justice system. This included fines, electronic tagging, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and being allocated a youth
offending team worker. Their views on these sanctions are outlined below.
The concept of restorative justice is also important for understanding the range of sanctions that could be used when
crime or antisocial behaviour is committed by young people. There was limited discussion of restorative justice during
the research, but what was discussed, has been highlighted here. Restorative justice was also identified as a key
theme that could benefit from discussion during the workshops. The findings from the workshop discussion are
presented at the end of this section.
Fines/warnings
Fines and warnings for minor offences were viewed by young people to be an appropriate alternative to taking young
people to court or having them serve custodial sentences – at least for minor offences.
Despite a general enthusiasm for fines there were also criticisms that they had the disadvantage of appearing on
criminal records and that the young person with the fine may not end up paying (i.e. a parent/carer would pay it for
them) or that they may struggle to pay due to their low income level (e.g. being on income support, not in
employment), which would only act to further marginalise them.
Suggestions were made that fines should be used as a form of restorative justice – (i.e. only used to pay back
damages to the victim or to repair damage). This was extended beyond monetary fines to a more ‘community service’
based approach whereby the offender would work to rectify what they had done (and not obtain a criminal record).
This was suggested as being a very useful form of punishment by the young people because it did not act to disrupt
the young offender’s life, acted to do good for the victims, and also could assist the young person who had offended
to learn something and consider the impact of their actions.
‘I think rather than like giving fines to everyone, I think they should make people do like more community service but
not have it as a thing that stays on your criminal record… I’d rather keep my money, I’d rather go and do the work
and keep my money to be honest, but I think for young people, like because most of the time it’s probably their
parents paying it off for a lot of them as well, so I think it would make sense like to do community service but to not
have it sat on their records.’
(Male, offender and victim, 19)
In the focus groups fines were also perceived as being ineffective, and therefore ‘pointless’. This was because not
only were they ineffective as a punishment (as they may not be paid), they were also inadequate as a rehabilitative
measure, as they did not address the causes of the young person’s criminal behaviour, nor act as a deterrent to
them engaging in further criminal activity. For example, issuing a fine would not directly lead to the young person
reflecting on their behaviour, or making changes in their life, and indeed young people who had received multiple
fines reported that they thought ‘nothing’ of getting fines as there was no penalty for not paying them. Finally there
was a perception that fines were simply a method of the state ‘taking back’ court costs and that even in cases where
fines were paid there was a sense from the young people of ‘so what?’ – what else had been achieved other than the
state being reimbursed.
‘If I’m going to court and I know I’m getting a fine I don’t think nothing of it. I think, Oh, whatever, its just another fine
to add to the list. But if they give you something else... like even if they give you supervision or something like that,
you have to go into probation once a week every week, yeah? It’s just a pain in the arse. It makes you think, ‘Oh,
was it really worth it? Like I’ve got to fucking waste an hour out of my week to go and sit with someone and do this
and that, was it really worth it? But a fine, it’s nothing. Like if you don’t pay it, they ain’t going to do nothing.
35
Whereas other things, yeah, they’ll do things about it. But a fine’s pointless, innit? What you’re really doing is
paying for the day that you was at court, cos it costs them a lot of money to have you at court.’
(Male, Focus group participant)
Electronic tagging
Young people who had been electronically tagged did not discuss this as a useful deterrent. Although it was
welcomed as a means for them to avoid a custodial sentence they had continued to commit crime whilst tagged.
The value of tagging was felt to be that the young person could be more easily tracked by the police and that for
victims it may assist them to feel safer because perpetrators may not be allowed to enter certain geographical
locations.
Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs)
ASBOs were described by the young people as being fairly ineffective. It was not felt that they would bring about
change in young people’s behaviour. It was also reported that for some young people an ASBO could be a status
symbol, setting the young person that had it apart as being ‘harder’ or ‘cooler’ than others in the area.
This chimes with the findings outlined in Chapter Two, that involvement in criminal activity can become normalised
and act as a route to gain self esteem and respect from others in society.
‘I thought it was cool… like we all thought it was cool, ‚oh we’re gonna get an ASBO‛ and that, I just thought it was
cool.’
(Female, Persistent offender, 14)
ASBOs, along with fines, were also seen as being an ineffective measure in the focus group discussions. This was
both for punishing and addressing young people’s behaviour. They were viewed instead by the young people as a
‘labelling’ device. In terms of punishment, ASBOs were reported as being ‘too soft’ and suggestions were put forward
of more suitable measures to address antisocial behaviour including sending young people on army style training
courses, and for children and young people who had problematic home lives, placing them in foster care. Regarding
the rehabilitative angle ASBOs were not perceived to address what had led to the young person getting involved in
antisocial behaviour.
Restorative justice
The concept of restorative justice was outlined during the focus groups and the young people’s views of this
ascertained. There was support for the principles of restorative justice. Reasons given for this were that restorative
justice punished offenders, whilst having the advantage of being repentant in nature and having benefits to both the
offender (in terms of reflecting on the impact of their criminal activity), individual victims of crime, and the wider
community. Such measures of dealing with crime were therefore seen as a potentially very effective way of dealing
with crime that goes beyond punishment.
Engagement workshop – commissioners and young people
During the workshop with the Commissioners restorative justice was highlighted as being a key area to focus on in
the discussion with the young people. Key questions to discuss included: When is restorative justice a good idea?
And how should it work?
36
Restorative justice was discussed during the engagement sessions with three Commissioners and three young
people. Young people involved in this group had direct experience of restorative justice and recounted their
experiences of this.
Three factors emerged from the discussion that affected their view on the appropriateness of restorative justice in a
given situation. These factors were also interlinked:
Nature of offence: violent crimes, such as murder, were viewed as being unsuitable for restorative justice. The
severity, and sensitive nature, of such crimes were cited as reasons for being unsuitable, unless both victims and
perpetrator were fully willing to take part. Similarly, restorative justice may not be considered a severe enough
punishment for such offences. Restorative justice was also deemed inappropriate for crimes where the distinction
between the offender and victim was unclear, for example, a perpetrator could be involved in a fight that they
perceived to be self defence. Crimes such as burglary were viewed as suitable, providing both parties were willing
to take part. A positive example of restorative justice working, in a case of burglary, was given during the
discussion:
‘I did a restorative justice course, and you would hear about loads of different cases - there was one man that
robbed a guy’s house and beat him up badly, and then when he went to court the victim turned up and said that
he doesn’t want him to go to jail, because he doesn’t feel that jail would be right for him. That it just wouldn’t make
no sense. So the judge said that he could fix his garden and he had work in the house to do and he said to the
guy, ‘Let him do work for me,’ and apparently they’re really good friends now.’
(Male, Workshop)
Therefore it appeared that the nature of the offence could be a key deciding factor as to the appropriateness of
restorative justice.
Structure of process: restorative justice requires careful preparation and two practical factors were identified that
affected the appropriateness of restorative justice. The first was the length of time between the crime being
committed and the restorative justice process taking place. Allowing the victim time to come to terms with the
crime and feel stable enough to meet their perpetrator was highlighted as a priority. The second was a
consideration of who attended the meeting. Additional family members were felt to disrupt the process and might
become emotional, which could influence the effectiveness of the process. However this concern needed to be
balanced with ensuring the victim felt supported through the process and that everyone involved felt that the
correct process had been adhered too – which related to the final key point:
Engagement from people involved – victim / offender: everyone involved in the restorative justice process needs
to be willing and prepared to attend in order for it to be successful. Victims of serious crimes might find the
experience too traumatic. Therefore ensuring they are supported and able to deal with facing the perpetrator was
identified as a main concern. The young people in this group put themselves in the shoes of the victim to decide
how they would feel about meeting the offender of a serious crime:
‘I couldn’t be sympathetic with someone who killed my daughter. I’d have to be in a good place.’
(Male, Workshop)
Offenders may also be reluctant to meet their victims, or their victim’s families as it could be difficult for them to
explain why the incident happened. For this to occur the offender would also have to have degree of self awareness,
and as is discussed in the final Chapter, such self awareness may only occur as people develop their pathway out of
crime. Similarly, apologising was not seen as sufficient to restore justice should someone be seriously affected by a
crime. This suggests that for the restorative justice process to be successful the young people felt it is about the
emotional and psychological process of facing responsibility for a crime, and also tangible and material amends being
made, such as possessions being restored or services offered by the offender.
37
The impact of restorative justice on preventing reoffending was also raised during the group discussion. Where
experiences of restorative justice were positive, it was viewed as being an effective method for preventing reoffending
compared to custodial sentences or community service. Meeting victim’s families was said to help people realise the
scale of the impact of their offence.
Where restorative justice had not been an effective solution, either because of the nature of the crime or the people
involved, other methods were cited as more suitable. For example, attending a course with other offenders to discuss
the reasons for committing the offence and receiving support could be an effective way of preventing reoffending.
These findings chime well with the discussion on custody. There, young people noted that short sentences are futile
and can draw people into a revolving door of prison. Given that additional sanctions such as tagging and ASBOs
were not deemed to be a deterrent to committing crime by the young people in the research, it may be that
increased use of restorative methods could counter the negative effects of custodial sentences for non-serious
offences, whilst having a greater impact than the other sanctions available. However as noted during the workshop
discussion on restorative justice, the limitation to this approach is that is requires all parties to be willing to engage,
and it represents a complex and sensitive process, which is therefore resource intensive.
Contact with youth justice system agencies
During the interviews young people also reported having contact with a range of agencies within the youth justice
system. Their experiences and views of the key agencies they discussed are outlined below. During the workshops
these specific agencies were not discussed.
Youth Justice Centre (YJC)
Young people interviewed had attended ‘youth justice centres’ as an alternative sanction following an offence. As they
came into contact with professionals during their YJC Order this has been placed in the section on youth justice
system agencies. Young people expressing positive opinions about YJCs described how attending had provided
them with a meaningful way to spend their time and they valued the chance and time to reflect on their behaviour and
to gain new skills. In particular young people stressed how they valued the opportunity to be engaged in activities that
were linked to their individual interests.
‘I like it here… I’ll not get into trouble and things whilst I’m here… Cause when I’m like here... it’s made me think
about stuff.’
(Female, Offender, 16)
In one case the young person benefited from the centre she attended so much that she had opted to attend an extra
day a week in order to engage in further activities. In contrast, negative attitudes included resenting the time lost
spent at the centre, viewing attending as something to ‘get through’ that was not of benefit to the young person.
38
Case Study
Sent to YJC for ABH charge for one year instead of prison. He was involved in beating up an individual who was
verbally assaulting his cousin who has autism. He does not regret his actions and would take the same action if this
occurred again despite the punishment.
At the YJC he is re-sitting his exams, and describes being able to do so as being given a ‘second chance’. His
experiences at the YJC and the counselling he receives have reduced the amount of trouble he gets into as a result
of anger issues and is grateful that he is not locked up in prison. However believes that prison would have had an
even greater impact at keeping him out of trouble. He thinks that attending the YJC is better than being in prison as
he is not locked up, gets to go home, get an education so that he can get a job. The aspect of attending the YJC
that has made the biggest impact on him, and his aspiration to now stay out of trouble, is having a second chance
to get an education.
Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)
YOTs are multi-agency teams coordinated by local authorities (in England and Wales), which deal with young
offenders, set up services for the young people and try to prevent custodial sentences and reoffending. Staff at YOTs
have expertise in a variety of areas including being police officers, probation officers, social workers and
psychologists.
Young people with experiences of YOTs discussed different degrees to which they felt support from their YOT
workers. Young people with positive experiences of YOTs valued being able to ‘just talk’ with YOT workers about
different topics ranging from day to day chat, to reflections about past behaviour, through to thinking ahead to the
future and making plans to move on with life with support from the YOT workers.
YOTs were generally viewed as providing a good service, however young people who found YOTs less helpful
described the relationship they had with YOT workers as superficial. For example they described talking to YOT
workers as ‘uncomfortable’ and a waste of time because they would ‘rather keep their problems to themselves’.
Therefore the value of the young person’s involvement with YOTs tended to hinge on the nature of the relationship
with staff they had. As the case study below illustrates however YOTs could provide a very positive intervention to
young offenders.
Case Study Described YOT workers as ‘lovely’ and as having been really good to her. They aided her in reflecting on her
previous behaviour. She is really interested in horses and the YOT team encouraged her to apply for a job
working with them. When she was successful in securing a job interview they funded her travel so that she could
go to the interview. She was offered the job and is looking forward to starting. She does not think that she would
be in this position without the support of the YOT workers.
39
Probation officers
Probation officers manage offenders when they are released from prison or are serving community orders, assist
them to access the support they need and ensure they are meeting the terms of their order or probation period.
The young people who had been convicted of offences as adults described their relationships with their probation
officers.
There were two main issues that were discussed in relation to their experiences with and attitudes towards probation
officers. The first was that they felt probation officers were ‘swamped’ with work and did not have adequate time to
devote to offering personalised support or guidance to ex offenders. For example, young people turning up to
interviews with probation officers felt they just had to have their name ‘ticked off’.
‘I had a good probation officer but what I found is they are only there to make sure you report. If you don’t ask
them questions they don’t tell you nothing or ways in which you can improve your life or courses which they can
recommend to you to make you progress after prison and that’s the thing I find real difficult.’
(Female, Offender, 24)
Positive experiences were also described. For example, an offender described how his probation officer had been
very supportive and had assisted him in addressing his problems with dyslexia.
Probation officers could therefore provide positive support for young people to cease engagement with crime,
however the quality of this interaction, and indeed the quality of the probation officer, was seen to be a matter of luck.
‘Some of them will judge you and some of them won’t it’s like, just the same thing, depending what one you got,
luckily I had a lovely probation officer…she helped me quite a lot and she taught me that you don’t have to settle
for anything less than what you want to try and do.’
(Male, Persistent offender, 23)
Principles of the youth justice system
During the focus groups, young people’s general views on the principles that should underpin the youth justice
system were discussed. Issues that the young people deliberated upon focused on individually tailored versus fixed
punishments, and relating to this, the extent to which the individual circumstances of a young offender should be
taken into account when deciding which sanction is most appropriate as a response to their behaviour.
Punishment tailored to the individual versus fixed punishments
One view was that issuing fixed punishments for specific offences was ineffective in breaking the cycle of young
people’s offending behaviour, and certain punishments could actually result in encouraging the young person to
become more deeply entrenched in criminal activity. For example giving a young person a fine for selling drugs could
encourage them to remain engaged in drug dealing in order to raise funds to pay the fine; giving an ASBO could act
as an incentive to stay engaged in crime in order to live up to a ‘hard’ ASBO status amongst their peer group. It was
suggested instead that young people should be treated in an individualised manner which was flexible enough to
address the problems, and possible causes of offending.
‘You could lock a young person up for ten years, yeah, and they could be happy because they don’t actually mind,
but at the same time that’s hell to someone else. So you have to find the right punishment to go for the right
person. It’s no use locking up everyone.’
(Male, Focus group participant)
However it was also felt that there should be fixed punishments, such as automatic custodial sentences, for certain
offences such as carrying a weapon, whereby the young person in question would not go to court, but simply be
issued a predetermined punishment.
40
Consideration given to the personal circumstances of young people involved in
antisocial behaviour and/or crime
A key aspect of the debate young people in the focus groups engaged in was the amount of consideration that
should be given to the circumstances and background of the young person, the relative weight these should carry,
and who should have responsibility for such deliberations. The specific views discussed were:
whether or not the youth justice system should have a duty to fully explore the reasons for young people
committing crime with the aim of resolving the problem; and,
questioning whose role it should be to explore why the young person has committed an offence and at what
stage this should occur, for example whether this task should lie with the courts or occur at an earlier stage i.e.
with the police or schools to possibly prevent (unnecessary) matters going to court.
‘You never know, the person who did it could have really bad family, like lifestyle or family life, and they could be in
danger. It depends, something you should investigate before you assume things.’
(Female, Focus group participant) Generally there was support for stakeholders in the youth justice system exploring the background of young people
and taking it into account before deciding on the outcome. However there was also a desire for more consistent
applications of sanctions and actions being taken that would both support the offender to reduce the likelihood of
reoffending whilst also ensuring they had to ‘face up’ to their crime and would not be able to cause further harm to
the victim or others. Thus, there was again widespread support for forms of restorative justice from the young people,
to support the principles discussed above.
41
4. Breaking the cycle – rehabilitation and
prevention
The young people had experienced crime, antisocial behaviour and extensive contact with the youth justice system.
While there were young people who remained involved in crime and antisocial behaviour at the time of the research,
there were also those had been able to ‘break the cycle’ and cease their involvement. The participants were asked to
identify measures which could have prevented their own or other people’s crime or antisocial behaviour occurring.
The finding from these explorations are summarised in this section.
Rehabilitation and support
The crime or antisocial behaviour that the young people were involved in tended to increase in severity over time.
Criminal ‘careers’ could begin with minor offences which could later escalate into serious offences. Alongside this,
positive influences in their lives were eroded – for example once they had been to prison or had a criminal record, the
young people noted that it was very difficult to access employment. They may also have become estranged from
family members who were not involved in crime or antisocial behaviour. They had multiple needs such as drug or
alcohol dependencies or homelessness and often faced abuse in the street from people who recognised them from
their trial or due to their reputation in the area they lived in.
Young people who had ‘moved on’ from crime had entered into a new phase in their life and had to change their
social networks, living circumstances and obtain a positive occupation of time to do so. They had to enter into a
transitional period which involved a number of factors – the sheer scale of change could be difficult and cause young
people to retreat back into familiar patterns of crime or antisocial behaviour. However there were key factors that
cumulatively assisted to successfully break this cycle. These are explored below.
Critical junctures
Initial moves away from crime or antisocial behaviour occurred after a critical juncture in a young person’s life. This
could take the form of going to prison or facing sanctions via the youth justice system, being badly assaulted or a
change in circumstance whereby they accessed the support and stability necessary for them to change.
As was noted in the previous section, sanctions from the youth justice system did not necessarily have the desired
effect of acting as a deterrent to crime or antisocial behaviour. Indeed being involved in the youth justice system could
perpetuate a close proximity to crime within the young people’s social networks and circumstances. However being
charged with an offence or serving a prison sentence could act as a critical juncture whereby the young person
realised that they could face serious consequences for their actions. It was not necessarily the punishment, but what
accompanied it, that underpinned this. For example, young people who were close to their family could report feeling
ashamed when they were charged with an offence, because they felt their family would be upset. However if these
young people were then supported by their family or professionals to access employment or training and to address
problems such as substance misuse or homelessness, then facing punishment via the youth justice system for their
actions could act as the ‘crisis point’ that led to them changing their behaviour.
However for those who did not face additional input from their social networks or were not able to access support to
gain stability in their lives once in contact with the youth justice system, this could act to further alienate them from
mainstream society. They did not fear the punishments but found them to be an inconvenience. For example, a
young person who has been involved in drug dealing and theft described that having to wear an electronic tag meant
they had to make sure they were home on time, but had not led to them ceasing to engage in criminal acts.
42
Becoming a victim or witnessing a crime could also lead to a critical juncture whereby young people changed their
lifestyle or circumstances to avoid risking these events occurring again. This could also occur when friends or
relatives with whom they had engaged in crime became victims, for example a friend being stabbed.
Developing stability
Being able to obtain stability and a sense of self esteem in their life could also be both a cause and effect of ceasing
to engage in crime or antisocial behaviour, across the age groups.
However gaining stability often required interventions and change to occur in the young people’s circumstances –
circumstances that may have been outside of their control. To develop stability in their life, young people had to have
access to adequate housing. Those who relied on their family for accommodation may have lived with relatives, such
as aunts, or step parents who were no longer in a relationship with their biological parents, because they felt that
these were more supportive figures in their lives than their actual parents. However such living arrangements could be
fragile and subject to change. Young people who had experienced being in foster care also recounted a lack of
stability and a great deal of movement in their lives.
When young people were able to obtain housing (either with a carer, their family, or a tenancy of their own) which was
adequate for their needs and in a reasonable area, they began to have the stability required to be able to engage with
other activities, such as school, college, training or employment, successfully.
A meaningful way to spend their time was reported to be a particularly significant factor that underpinned young
people ceasing to be involved in crime or antisocial behaviour. Education was noted as being particularly important,
especially for younger children becoming involved in crime. Older participants (aged over 18) noted that, had they
had a positive experience of education when they were younger, this may have acted to prevent their involvement in
crime. They felt this would have provide them with the skills and self esteem to have ‘done something else’ with their
life. School was also described as a place where young people could learn about crime and the effect that crime can
have on people, thus having a broader preventative role through education.
Younger people who were employed or in training during the interview noted that ‘growing up’ and getting a job had
had more of an effect on stopping their criminal behaviour than interventions from the youth justice system.
Having designated facilities and activities for young people were also cited as important – such as places to ride
motorbikes, or do graffiti art. These were viewed as fun occupations by young people and having a place where they
could engage in these activities without them being deemed to be antisocial was viewed as an important intervention.
‘They should have like one wall on one street, and then on each street they should have one wall where they can
do graffiti, and then you wouldn’t have it on buildings and stuff would they? It’s like all this right, it’s all there,
antisocial behaviour because they haven’t got nothing for them to do like. So it’s not our fault, d’ya know what I
mean? It’s their fault for not sorting it out for us, we can’t sort it out ‘cause we’ll just get done for it.’
(Male, Persistent offender, 17)
However, gaining stability in life could be highly challenging. Young people reported that there were few employment
options available, courses they attended were not necessarily in professions they were interested in, and having a
criminal record was felt to act as a barrier to ever being able to move on and gain constructive qualifications or
employment.
Therefore they felt that contact with the youth justice system could actually act as a further barrier to overcoming their
criminal behaviour and difficult circumstances, rather than a deterrent.
43
Positive role models and pastoral support
Just as social networks could have a negative effect and encourage involvement in crime and antisocial behaviour,
positive social networks and role models were deemed an important factor in young people’s ability to cease
involvement in crime or antisocial behaviour. Two contradicting factors were reported regarding this however. It was
reported that ‘tough love’ such as being asked to leave the parental home after offending, and becoming self
sufficient, could act to ‘shock’ the young person into considering their actions and changing, so that their family would
accept them again. It was also reported that being asked to leave the parental home could lead to a sense of having
no boundaries and therefore increased criminal activity.
Whatever the domestic situation, it was identified as important by the young people during the research that they had
a positive role model or a ‘mentor’ in their life, who would at the most fundamental level ‘be there’ for the young
person and listen to them, set boundaries and support them. For example, a participant described how their YOT
worker helped them to consider their behaviour and the ‘right path to take’ in their life. Their YOT worker provided the
advice and support to make decisions that the young person did not feel they had the life skills to be adequately
equipped to make.
‘They understand you, they don’t just, like the police they’ll, you’ll be talking and they talk over you, they won’t even
listen, they’ll blank you out as if you’re not there. But (name of support worker) will sit and listen to you, what your
thoughts are and that.’
(Female, Persistent offender, 14)
Interestingly, participants also noted that positive role models in the media could assist by providing young people
with a ‘template’ for their own life. For example, a participant who had been a prolific offender felt that young black
people are not educated enough about successful, educated black people in the UK and that even popular dramas
tend to have few black role models that are positive. He noted that for young people growing up the only ‘good’
option appears to be crime – drug dealing etc. Providing positive role models both in the real and virtual world were
therefore felt to be a way to promote alternatives to young people so that they may avoid crime and also have higher
self esteem and awareness of what they could achieve.
Self awareness
The young people who were no longer engaged in crime identified that, after a critical juncture and once they had
some stability and positive influences in their life, their self awareness regarding their crime and antisocial behaviour
increased.
They began to understand the impact of crime. With greater self awareness came a realisation of their actions and
how they harmed their own family and their victims. It was this internal sense of shame and self awareness that could
be reported to be a key motivating factor for avoiding crime or antisocial behaviour. This could also require additional
changes in their lives such as ceasing to spend time with friendship groups they had offended with.
‘I toppled a car and I could have had my friends in the car…crushed all the roof and everything… the car looked as
if someone died in it, when I got out I run I did, I was fuckin’ gone, I’m glad no one was in it. But then if any of my
friends was in that car with me, I’d have killed them and I wouldn’t have been happy then, d’ya know what I mean?
If I crashed with friends in the car like that, done that damage, I’d rather be dead outright, so I just stopped.
Stopped pinching cars.’
(Male, Persistent offender, 17)
Among participants that had been less involved in the antisocial behaviour awareness of the reality of punishment
could also act as a deterrent. For example, a younger participant commented that he did not wish to get in trouble
again after his brother was in prison and had explained to him what it was like, and after he had been held in a
holding cell.
44
Aspirations and goals
The young people who were no longer involved in crime noted that with stability and self awareness they had
identified goals and aspirations for the future. These aspirations became a motivating factor in avoiding crime or
antisocial behaviour.
For example, participants may have identified professions they wished to pursue such as becoming a hairdresser, or
they had recently had children. This changed their outlook and motivated them to change their lives. However this
could also be a precarious stage in their life. Should they be unable to find employment and support their children,
they may return to drug dealing; should they be unable to find a course that suits them to train as a hairdresser and
remain unoccupied, they could easily slip into offending behaviour again.
Essentially the young people explained that, once crime becomes normalised, there needed to be a reason not to
become involved in crime. The sanctions of the youth justice system were not enough of a deterrent. The young
people reported that they had to reach a stage where they wanted to avoid being involved in crime ‘for themselves’.
To be in that place they required a degree of material and emotional security.
Engagement workshop with commissioners and young people - criminal records
During the workshops with Commissioners, one of the key themes for discussion they identified was that of criminal
records, and whether these should be cleared at a certain age for younger people who offend. This theme has been
felt to relate to rehabilitation because workshop discussion the young people had during this session, centred around
the notion of ‘having the slate wiped clean’ when a young person has ceased to be involved in crime. When this was
discussed during the engagement workshop there was variation in views between the young people, with one
favouring retaining criminal records whatever the offence, to a greater extent than the others.
The key issues regarding whether or not criminal records should be cleared at a certain point that were discussed are
summarised below:
Nature of offence: the young people were in agreement that for certain serious offences such as rape, murder and
violence, criminal records should always be maintained so that offenders can be monitored. However there was less
agreement regarding minor crimes where it was felt that retaining a criminal record for something a ‘long time ago’
could affect job prospects. Instead of having a criminal record that could show up on CRB records, and effectively
bar people from certain jobs, it was suggested that people with criminal records could be monitored but still be able
to engage in, for example, employment in schools, on a case by case basis. There was also an interesting
suggestion that the motive for the offence should also be taken into account. If it was a violent crime, but was felt to
have been motivated by self defence or passion, then it was not deemed as necessary to retain criminal records as if
it was a less ‘justifiable’ offence. Therefore the criminal record was viewed as means to monitor people, but not
something that should limit what could be achieved should an offender genuinely become rehabilitated, or the
offence be a ‘one off’.
Age of offender: the age of the offender was also discussed. Although one young person did initially think that
criminal records should be retained whatever the offence or age of the offender, once the group discussed young
people committing minor offences, such as shop lifting, they changed their mind. It was felt that young people may
do ‘stupid things’ that they grow out of and that they should be able to have these offences removed from their
record:
‘I thought that you should always have your record but obviously if it’s at a young age, you don’t really know, it’s just
a dumb mistake. If he improves himself, if he doesn’t carry on and it was a one off then yeah, [they could have it
taken off their record]’
(Female, young person, Workshop)
45
The Commissioners led onto a general discussion regarding the age of criminal responsibility – i.e. at what age
should a young person be held responsible for their actions. The young people in the workshop grappled with this
issue and, while conceding that at a young age people may not be fully aware of what they are doing, they found it
difficult to ascertain at what age they should be deemed responsible. They also noted that even young children
have to learn criminal behaviour and may have viewed their parents acting in such as way before they commit a
crime, so there should be someone held to account.
Points system – earn the right to clear criminal record: an interesting suggestion emerged from the discussion which
centred on young people building up points with which to be able to ‘wipe clean’ criminal records. This was well
received by the group. It was felt that there could be a two tier system whereby young people who had offended
could earn points both by not reoffending, and also by gaining positive development in their lives such as going to
college and volunteering.
‘So you could have like a reward system in terms of your record. You might be able to build up a reward system to
allow you to get the things that stop you committing crime, like a flat, a job, like some allowance that you get back
from community work. So you get some payback. Effectively you have two strands, one that’s getting rid of your
record and one that’s giving you the means to stop.’
(Commissioner, Workshop)
‘Points equal prizes.’
(Young person, Workshop)
It was posited that young people under the age of 16 could be particularly encouraged to work towards gaining
‘points’ for good behaviour rather than punished for reoffending because this they could see this as earning a ‘prize’.
The idea of the points system was not extensively developed during the discussion, however it was well received by
the group and could be an area for further consideration by the Commissioners as an aspect of support for, and
rehabilitation of, young offenders.
Prevention of crime – depth interviews
During the interviews young people hypothesised that there were four main factors that would have either prevented
them from being involved in crime (in the case of offenders), or would have prevented their peers from getting
involved (in the case of victims and witnesses).
The preventative factors identified were:
Crime free context – living in an area free from widespread crime; having a friendship group not involved in
crime; and, having ways to spend time;
Independent thought and thinking about the consequences of crime;
Receiving guidance from parents/carers and school; and,
‘Growing up’ and gaining employment or an occupation.
As has been discussed in Chapter Two, young people described how the environment in which they lived, the young
people in their friendship group, and how they spent their time, were important motivating factors in their involvement
in crime. Young people believed that had the circumstances of their life been different - living in an area with a low
crime rate, friends not involved in crime, and activities to do, then this would prevent them from becoming involved in
crime. They would not be exposed to crime in the same way, nor have peers to introduce them into crime, or
accomplices to be involved with.
46
The second factor identified by the participants that could have prevented their involvement in crime or antisocial
behaviour was the ability to ‘make their own mind up’ and ‘think for themselves’, rather than just doing what their
friends were doing. Young people explained how they had not thought about their actions and consequences, but
had rather just found themselves in this situation where crime was easy to engage in.
The third factor that young people thought could have prevented their involvement in crime was receiving guidance,
and being ‘pointed in the right direction’ on subjects such as the consequences of crime, from significant people
such as parents/carers and/or school teachers. For example, a participant described how his father had not been
around when he was growing up and he had therefore lacked a male role model. He believed that had his father
been present in his life to instruct and guide him he would not have been involved in crime as he would have feared
the consequences of doing so. In terms of the role of schools, young people stressed that schools had an important
part to play both in terms of addressing troublesome behaviour at a young age (when offenders first start getting into
trouble) and also in raising awareness about the consequences of crime. For example, schools could teach young
people about the reality of being in prison, and the impact having a criminal record, such as difficulty finding
employment. It was suggested that schools should do activities to raise awareness about such matters.
Despite these suggestions however there was also an acknowledgment from the young people that in some cases
having enough money or status via alternative means would have prevented them becoming engaged in crime.
Therefore broad challenges regarding the social structure and the opportunities that certain young people have within
this were raised. Addressing this may be outside of the direct remit of the youth justice system, however as was
discussed in Chapter Three, when young people were supported via the youth justice system to gain greater stability
in their life and to consider their actions, then positive outcomes could occur.
Being able to gain employment or training in an area that interested them was also identified as a way to prevent
crime, because young people would have ‘something else to do’ and potentially a lot to lose should they be caught
committing an offence. In the context of having little to lose, contact with the youth justice system was less of a
threat.
Prevention of crime – focus groups
During the focus groups, two of these preventative factors identified in the research were discussed as having
salience to young people in terms of a way to reduce their engagement in crime and antisocial behaviour. These are
outlined below.
Meaningful occupation of time: providing activities that occupied young people’s minds and time, such as social
activities, education or employment, was considered important as these acted as a focus point. In particular,
keeping young people involved in the school system was considered crucial, and using measures such as
suspension and expulsion were seen to have the potential to lead to further deteriorations in young people’s
behaviour. For some young people getting suspended or expelled from school could also actually be seen as a
positive thing, such was their dislike of school. The young people in the focus groups suggested that measures
should be taken so that young people at danger of suspension or expulsion remain in the school system. There
are however considerable potential resource implications to this, such as providing pupils with more support
workers and possible one on one support to enable them to remain in the school environment.
Indeed during the focus groups there was extensive discussion of the role that schools could play in both
preventing young people getting involved in crime and assisting those who were already involved in halting their
involvement. Given that three of the four groups were conducted with young people who were still in full time
schooling, this may be unsurprising. However it also provided useful insight into how school could act a
mechanism for early intervention and prevention of crime and antisocial behaviour from the perspective of young
people actually within the school system.
47
In discussion about who young people could turn to for support it was suggested that having someone to talk to
at school is an effective measure. However this was not simply a matter of turning to a teacher. The following
reasons for not wanting to turn to a teacher were given:
a reluctance to discuss personal information with a teacher as young people would fear being ‘judged’;
having to repeatedly see the teacher around the school following speaking to them about a personal issue
could be very uncomfortable; and
that teachers may escalate matters in ways not desired by the child or young person, for example, involving
parents.
These views resulted in young people feeling that schools should have an independent person who could be
approached and asked for advice and support when young people were experiencing difficulty, not a member of
regular teaching staff, who would listen to the young person without any preconceptions and offer support and
advice in a non-biased way. This person could have a specialism in crime and social care and be trained to
engage with young people, rather than be on the ‘side’ of the teachers.
Equipping young people with self awareness and self esteem against getting drawn into antisocial/criminal
behaviour: the young people in the focus groups felt that behaving in a violent, aggressive way was the
outcome of young people not feeling there were other forms of behaviour open to them to cope with
challenging or threatening incidents in their life. For example taking a knife into school to confront bullies,
rather than reporting the bullying to someone. Such pressures seemed to have a gendered nature and were
discussed as laying particularly heavy on boys rather than girls.
‘If one of the boys beats the other boy up, all you hear is like him bragging about it as if it’s something, like
an achievement. And you hear everyone else going up to him, like, ‘Oh well done, well done’. Well not
girls, but most of the boys. It’s weird. I don’t get it, but boys probably do.’
(Female, Focus group participant)
Young people being isolated, and not a member of a social peer group was also identified within the focus groups as
being a potential trigger point for being involved with ‘the wrong crowd’ and antisocial or criminal behaviour. The
desire to belong to a social group was seen as incredibly strong, especially for those children and young people who
are socially isolated and a desire to ‘fit in’ outweighed concerns about engaging in bad behaviour.
‘If they probably didn’t have any friends, if a group of people were saying, ‘Oh, you can come round with
us’, it don’t matter what reputation they’ve got, if it means they can have friends they’ll probably go round
with them anyway.’
(Female, Focus group participant)
Therefore the young people in the focus group discussions felt that supporting children and young people to belong
to a peer group and have positive self esteem could actually act a strong preventative measure against youth crime
and antisocial behaviour.
Prevention of crime – workshop plenary
Considering how to prevent young people becoming involved in crime or antisocial behaviour and also preventing
reoffending, are clearly important issues to consider for the Commission. During the workshop with young people
they identified that prevention is a wide ranging and important topic. Due to this importance, the young people
elected to discuss prevention as a group plenary session at the conclusion of the afternoon workshop with
48
Commissioners. This led to the discussion regarding prevention being less structured than that of the others sessions
and themes. Nevertheless interesting points were raised, that mirrored those already outlined in the research report,
and that acted to move the discussion forwards.
The young people and Commissioners were first asked to identify, in pairs, the key factors that they feel could act to
assist in the prevention of youth crime.
The following points were made following on from this:
Prevention of crime
Early intervention: Prevention begins at a young age. It was suggested by one of the young people that at 12
years of age they are unaware of how to commit crime. It is when they are 13 or 14 that they start to understand
their actions. Intervention before this age with young people who are at risk of crime (they have no positive role
model, few boundaries set by parents or carers) was viewed as being particularly significant, because at this age
a lot could be achieved through diverting young people from crime.
Responsible parents/carers: It was suggested that young people who do not have responsible role models,
parents or carers will lack direction and goals or boundaries for themselves. Interestingly, the young people
discussed this in terms akin to attachment theory. They suggested that if a parent or carer does not set
boundaries and rules for young people – essentially that they ‘do not care’ what they do – the young person will
equate this with them not caring for them. They will in turn have lower self esteem and not care what they do to
other people. Therefore not only early intervention but responsible parents or carers being evident in the lives of
young people were suggested by young people as being essential to the healthy development of young people.
Prevention of reoffending
Role models and mentors: the significance of role models in the lives of young people who have offended, to
support them to develop self awareness and a sense that positive opportunities are available for them, was
highlighted in the research. However this was also strongly asserted by the young people during the workshop
session with Commissioners. Two types of role models were identified – those who are successful in their own
right and could illustrate that there are other means to make money and gain status than crime; and those who
work closely with young people in a mentoring position, supporting them and ‘always being there’ when they
needed:
‘If you said to a young kid you could earn that much money if you go to work and work hard and you go there
every day and it is rewarded I am sure they would be willing to do it’
(Male, Workshop)
In contrast the other role models identified as a positive influence was due to the level of commitment they gave
to young people:
‘The reason why I have so much respect for him is because he is there when I need him’
(Male, Workshop)
Indeed it was also noted that young people who have been involved in crime but no longer are, can act as powerful
role models to other young people. Despite the significance of role models and the identification of very positive types
of role models by the young people, the complex interpersonal relationship that is involved in a successful mentoring
relationship was also identified: ‘But how do we get people like that?’ (Male, Workshop). Thus it appeared that the
right role model, at the right time, for the right young person, was actually the mechanism that worked to support
49
young people in their diversion from crime or antisocial behaviour. This could be a difficult circumstance to engineer.
Nevertheless role models do appear to be an important element.
Aspiration and goals: Role models and opportunities being available to young people were cited as important
because these underpinned young people developing aspirations and goals that did not involve crime. This again
mirrored the findings from the earlier research.
Job opportunities: just as was identified during the research, the need for young people to be able to access
employment opportunities was highlighted as being important as a diversion from crime. It was suggested that
employers could enter into schemes where they are able to take on young people with criminal records on a long
term probation period. The difficulty of obtaining a job with a criminal record was once again noted. Thus even
with a mentor and aspirations, young people can face sustained difficulty engaging with opportunities and a
complex intersection of opportunities appear to be needed to adequately support the prevention of reoffending.
During the workshop plenary discussion another key issue was raised that may have resonance for the Commission -
that the problem of youth crime (including the motivation for engaging in criminal behaviour and how this might be
addressed) cannot be resolved by the youth justice system alone. Structural and societal factors such as a lack of
employment or education opportunities and a lack of alternative identity or status appear to play a key mitigating role.
‘You are growing up in poverty areas, or mixing with people who are involved in criminality, you don’t have
people who believe in you and you get caught up in a cycle of criminality.’
(Female, Workshop)
As does personal responsibility, with the young people succinctly identifying this:
‘Well for the system to change, we need to change, because we are the system, we are the people, we’re the
community.’
(Female, Workshop)
However the remit of the Commission is to examine responses to youth crime and antisocial behaviour and how the
youth justice system responds to this. While clearly improvements could be made to this system, and a number
were suggested both during the research and workshops, the end point of prevention appears to focus on drivers
of structural inequality, and individualised alienation from society, which, while important, may be far outside the
remit of that the Commission.
At least it could be suggested that by listening to young people, as the Commissioners have via this research and
engagement process, they understand the priorities for young people and have highlighted the significance of their
task.
50
5. Conclusion
The three stage process undertaken during this engagement project provided a mass of information, collected from a
diverse group of young people and gathered using different methods and strategies. What these young people
shared was that their lives had at some point become ruptured by crime and antisocial behaviour. This could have
been serious and extensive such as the case of the prolific offenders, or deemed mundane and ordinary - petty
crimes, such as shoplifting or making a noise in a public place. What the young people had also experienced was
being a victim and witness of crime, whether reported or not. These were often crimes that posed serious risk to their
personal safety, such as kidnapping, rape and assault. From this it was clear that for many young people, negotiating
a route through their youth can be imbued with risk, fear, and opportunities to commit crime and antisocial behaviour.
With regard to the youth justice system, young people tended to have extensive experience of contact with the
police, but had mixed views on the treatment of young people by the police. They understood the need for police to
maintain authority but reportedly felt at times discriminated and disrespected by them. Interesting suggestions were
made during the workshop discussion regarding how police and young people’s relations could be improved. Young
people also had varied experiences of court and custody. While the young people acknowledged that crime and
wrong doing should be dealt with in a systematic manner, they often felt that the system was not designed with
enough information, advice and support, or understanding of the young person’s perspective. Therefore many
existing sanctions such as custody, tagging or fines were not helping to rehabilitate or even acting as a punishment
for young people, but were just part of a revolving door, meaning that once a young person entered into the youth
justice system it was difficult to leave.
Yet there were young people that took part in this project that had indeed managed to break this cycle and move
away from crime and antisocial behaviour. The reasons that young people identified for moving away from crime
successfully included being able to access high quality support, and options such as employment, training or
education, where they felt there was a genuine desire from figures of authority for them to do well. The importance of
mentors and role models, in providing young people with direction, boundaries and inspiration was often cited. With
support and mentors in place young people then felt that they could develop the self awareness and esteem to face
up to their crime, acknowledge it was wrong and chose a different path. This process (self awareness, responsibility)
chimes with the themes of restorative justice, and forms of restorative justice were suggested by young people as
being a very positive way with which to address youth crime and antisocial behaviour.
In terms of victims’ views, the complexity of crime was apparent. Often the young people had been victimised and
then committed crimes themselves as a response to this, or in revenge. The line between victim and offender was
heavily blurred. Young people who had predominantly experienced the justice system as a victim, tended to report
remarkably similar views on this system to those who were offenders - such as a sense that the police were unhelpful
because they were young; and that the system was not set up with young people and their needs, or indeed the
needs of the victim in mind.
So what key messages from this overall process of engagement may be relayed?
First, it appears there is a great strength of agreement among young people regarding the youth justice system, and
young people’s pathways in and out of crime and antisocial behaviour. This is whether they are prolific offenders, at
risk of offending, victims, witnesses; younger, older; male, female; of different ethnicities, and from different
geographical locations.
Young people felt that crime and antisocial behaviour is underpinned by a sense of alienation from society, a lack of
care and attention from primary carers when young, a lack of role models, in a consumerist world, which leads to
young people not knowing how to care about themselves, or others, around them. The young people did not justify
or excuse crime or antisocial behaviour but could understand why it occurs in this context. They suggested early
51
intervention in schools, support from families, role models and mentors, and a greater responsibility for the well-being
of all young people being considered to a greater extent in the future.
If this does not work and young people go on to commit crimes, forms of restorative justice were favoured as a
response. For more serious crimes it was acknowledged that young people should serve custodial sentences, but
that this should be accompanied by consistent resettlement support and opportunities within prison that could
continue on release. Exceptions were cited however, for very serious offences such as rape or homicide, whereby
young people felt offenders committing such crimes should be treated differently, by for example having consistently
long sentences. Indeed a key message from young people was a desire for a greater level of consistency in how the
youth justice system operates – in everything from how police engage with young people, to sentencing, to the
support available in different prisons.
These views were strongly shared by young people consulted with during the research and engagement process.
They also shared the hope that from this process those in power will do something to improve how the system
responds to young people – as young people – with an awareness of their needs.
52
Appendix A
Messages to the commissioners: quotes from the young people
‘I have to respect [name of support worker] because she believes in me and has given me opportunities, and its
people like that that are going to make people like me go forward and not go back into crime, and not want to go
back into crime… if she can do that for one person, maybe I can do it for ten, and maybe that ten can do it for a
thousand and it can continue. But, as I said, Rome wasn’t built in a day, so it’s just slowly, isn’t it?
When you go to prison, you commit a crime and it’s bad and you should be paying for it, but I do think that certain
circumstances should be really taken into account, more looked at, by the judges, to see if there’s any other things
they could do rather than send young people just to prison like that, and not only that, it destroys them. I went to
prison when I was 19 and, I was a young offender coming to adults, and when you come out, you feel lost. You
don’t even know where to start. Everyone’s ahead of you relationship wise, job wise and you just feel lost; you don’t
even know where you stand. Do you understand what I mean? You go for that long and then you come out as an
adult which you’ve never been an adult on the outside… it’s a bit hard to deal with, but I think personally that there
should be more done. I do believe that there should be much more done and maybe judges and probation officers
that do, you know, pre-sentence reports need to look at different strategies and think about what they’re really doing
when they’re sending someone to prison at that young age, and the environment and the influence and, you know,
the things that could happen, rather than just looking at the crime and looking in the guidelines of how long they
should get, rather than how this really occurred and what could be done and prevented…
To be truthful I think the Commissioners need to sit down with the judges and start talking about guidelines and
sentences, and maybe looking into other programmes that maybe these young offenders can go on or get into. I
think really and truly that instead of just looking at the guidelines and the crime, they need to look into how it came to
this; do you know what I mean? Which comes back to communities again. I think the real issue and the problem is
the communities and really how parents are sort of grooming and growing their children in a sense’.
(Female, offender, now 25)
‘They should show the way that young people can do things to have fun and at the same time they can learn from
them as well, and listen to them as well, don’t take them as young or they don’t understand, they don’t know much,
take them as equal, you know what I mean, sometimes it happens, they know more than us, like a fifteen year old
knows more than me, it does happen’.
(Female, offender & victim, 18)
‘I just think that there should be more options out there, should be more stuff you can choose from to do, like, do
more activities or do, residential courses. There should be more residentials, definitely, because honest to god, they
are really, really good. I know for a fact hundreds of people will love them. They would love residentials because it
does actually make you think, makes you think of stuff and you’re being away from home and you’re with different
people that you don’t know but you’re all in the same category.’
(Female, offender & victim, 16)
‘Just try and give young people another option, things that they can get involved with, with the community, like with
the police and just try and build like community spirit, just do like community projects and stuff like that and get people
that are doing community service to work on it as well as volunteers and just try and steer people in the right direction
and treat them more fairly as well’.
(Male, offender & victim, 19)
53
‘Not to be so harsh, I know if they done a crime you’re gonna have to be strict and stuff, but they were a kid once
before as well, they have probably committed a crime haven’t they? And for them to think back themselves as well,
you know, I was a kid, not everything’s easy and if things go wrong you tend to fuck up a bit more like as a kid, cause
its all in your head all the time. So just like, have the time to find out why they done it first and give more support for
them, more befrienders and stuff, and even, well as eighteen year olds it kinda changes doesn’t it? But I think even
as eighteen year olds as well, you should help them; I think you should help them up to about nineteen, cause they’re
still young sort of thing’.
(Female, offender & victim, 17)
‘I think that in order to improve the system I think they need to focus on what they want to do in terms of getting
people ready for release because going into the system and coming through your sentence it’s alright and what not,
well it’s not alright but you know, the real problem is coming out. You want the difference to be made when they get
out and in order to make that difference you’ve got to think of something, think of ways in order to rehabilitate
themselves. Maybe, I don’t even know if you could think of any courses because you know like confidence building,
because a lot of people lose confidence when they go to prison, so when they come out dealing with the outside
world they’d rather just shut themselves away because they they’re used to feeling away from the outside world, so to
be faced with it, it’s a bit of a challenge for them, so I think they need to focus on what happens next when you get
out. Also before you get out of prison I reckon we should do something in terms of preparing you for release because
they don’t address institutionalisation that’s never been put to me I never even knew it existed until I got out of prison
to be honest with you, so I think they need to prepare or put together something that could help people deal with
institutionalisation, rehabilitation, possibly some courses to build back confidence depending on how long they’ve
been out of society and look at helping with accommodation, helping the people to start and live that stable life,
because a lot of people aren’t used to living a stable life before they went away, so accommodation, they need help
with accommodation and I reckon they need additional help with employment because its alright me getting out and
trying to get a job, but I think I’d be more confident in getting a job if I had someone there supporting me and giving
me an insight into what jobs I can go for, making me aware of my limits and my restrictions of my criminal record,
because some people when they see a criminal record that’s the end of it. Some people they’re not made aware, so
if they’re aware maybe they can say, alright then, ‚well I know I can’t work in A, B or C, but let’s look at D, E and F
and see how I can work towards that‛, so I reckon its about making people aware of opportunities that are available to
them, courses, further education. I reckon help with accommodation and I reckon preparing for the outside…
A lot of young children they follow other people, like I did, I followed the drug dealer because I believed that that was
the right thing to do, but now looking back I would have rather been the leader, the one that if you know went to
college, went to university and got a good start in life, so I’d say don’t be a follower be a leader and don’t live your life
through other people. I think it’s a good idea to have more projects that are making young people aware of negative
and antisocial behaviour and aware of ways in which people use other people for personal benefit, because a lot of
kids don’t see the difference between opportunity and being used because I never did. I seen what someone did to
me as an opportunity but it’s only as I’ve grown and matured I’ve seen it’s using, I was used to do someone else’s
job, so I reckon it’s making people aware of the difference between opportunities and people using you. I reckon
more projects and more workshops, anything that can get the message across. Maybe focus on how the schools,
you know where a lot of kids from certain schools have got you know more behavioural problems than people from
the other schools so maybe target them first, primary schools get the message across. I mean you can’t, its initially at
the end of it its always up to the individual but awareness is a great thing, making people aware and you know
supporting them if they want to do good, its a good thing, because what I’ve noticed with kids is they’re so used to
being acknowledged for negative behaviour that that’s what they thrive on, they thrive on negative behaviour and
they’re used to getting acknowledged for it, so I reckon its about helping them, because on some of these courses,
you can help the individuals decide what they want to do or where their strengths are, because a lot of kids you work
with they’ve got something they want to do but they are made to believe that they cant get there, its just a fantasy. So
I reckon it’s about making people, making the young people as well believe that they can get there, they can you
know, get that dream job if they put in the effort in and if they set out a proper plan’.
(Female, offender, 24)
54
Appendix B
Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour
Members
Anthony Salz
Ruth Ibegbuna
Sir Ken Macdonald
Ian McPherson
Sara Nathan
Angela Neustatter
David Smith
Sir David Varney
Derrick Anderson
Paul Johnson
Andrew Webb
Mike Thomas
Secretariat
David Utting
John Graham