‘No more excuses’ (1997) also proposed the YJS should strive to improve awareness of the system and improve public confidence by reducing fear of crime. Hough and Roberts (2003) discovered that although youth crime has not increased in recent years, three out of four believed it had. The same research also found most people had not heard of Yots and nearly 90% over estimated how much of youth crime is violent. Furthermore, Bala and others (2002) discovered that most people are unaware that over 80% of custodial sentences result in reconviction within two years, and that community sentences are three times cheaper than custodial. Public confidence is also low. The 1998 British Crime Survey, indicated the youth court was rated lower than any other criminal justice agency, and that three quarters of people believed them to be too lenient (Mattinson and Mirrless). Four years later, people expressing confidence in the youth court had also fallen from 25 to 21%. It would therefore appear that the aim of improving the public’s view of the YJS is not being effectively met. This has a further detrimental effect on the YJS aims when we consider that nearly one-half of magistrates take account of public opinion in reaching their sentencing decisions (AC 2004, p.40).
Another aim taken forward in ‘the 1998’ act was that early, more effective intervention should occur when young people first offend. Child safety orders and local child curfews were introduced to protect children under 10 from becoming involved in crime, whilst the police reprimand and Final Warning scheme was introduced to try and avoid minor first offences going to court. Sheffield University investigated the effectiveness of reprimands and Final Warnings. They concluded that these new police disposals are particularly effective in preventing re-offending. In addition, the Youth Justice Board’s Annual Statistics (2005/06, p.39) indicate that the required target for Final Warning performance is being met, and those which used intervention programmes seem to have improved thinking and behaviour in attitudes to offending (AC 2004, p.19). However the AC (2004, p.18) suggested that a lack of training is jeopardising this system. Furthermore, Yot managers believe the percentages set for Final Warnings to be accompanied by intervention programmes are too high in relation to the needs of young people, and resources could be utilised better elsewhere (AC 2004).
‘No More Excuses’ (1997) also proposed Action Plan Orders that combine punishment, rehabilitation and reparation to make community sentences more effective. Supervision Orders were also introduced where the frequency or seriousness of the offending required an extended period of supervision. Research has suggested these are both effective in reducing reconviction rates (AC 2004, pg39). In addition, Referral Orders were introduced under The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (‘the 1999’ act). This now meant that when a young person is prosecuted for the first time and pleads guilty they may be referred to, with their parent or guardian, a Youth Offending Panel (YOP). Fifty seven percent of magistrates rated them as good or excellent in providing programmes or activities and providing sufficient supervision, whilst eight out of ten said that their introduction has been beneficial in providing an appropriate response to first-time offenders (National Audit Office (NAO)/ AC 2003). However, the quality of the orders varies locally and in some cases it can take more than two months after the court hearing before a meeting with the panel occurs (AC 2004, pg.26). This undermines the credibility of the order in view of the court, the YO and his or her parent.
The White Paper (HO 1997) also aims to provide effective custodial sentences and remands. This aim was met by ‘the 1999’ act which allowed court-ordered remands direct to local authority secure accommodation for certain groups of YO, such as vulnerable 15 and 16-year-old boys. This was coupled with Regime standards developed by the Prison Service to safeguard the welfare of the YO, consistent with the need to protect public and staff whilst remanded in custody. Unnecessary secure remands try to be avoided, and from March 2000 to September 2003, the juvenile remand population went from 722 to 620. However the average time spent on remand during this period has not reduced overall (AC 2004, pg.21-22) and limited spare capacity resulted in 2,400 moves between April 2002 and January 2003 with more vulnerable boys being placed in YO institutions (NAO 2004).
The provision of bail supervision and support also appears effective in reducing delays due to non-appearance and cut costs by providing YO with opportunities to tackle offending behaviour. However, although the AC (2004, pg 21) found “the number of young people who offend on bail has fallen from one in three to one in five”, it was suggested that devoting resources to bail support programmes in itself is not sufficient to reduce the number of secure remands. Furthermore, there was also evidence that remand decisions leading to custody altered for different ethnic groups. To reduce the number of YO in custody ‘the 1998’ act also introduced the Detention and Training Order (DTO), which attempt to prevent further crime by halving the sentence spent in custody, with the remainder spent under community supervision. The NAO (2004) report found that provisions for young people whilst in custody were still limited and there was a lack of co-ordination between youth offending teams and the secure estate, disrupting their transition back into the community. It was proposed that until these problems were addressed re-offending rates will remain high.
However, Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programmes (ISSP) were introduced in 2001, providing an alternative to custodial remand and short custodial sentences for persistent YO and the HO (2003 pg.7) proposed to make these the main response to serious and persistent offending. A University of Oxford study (Gray 2005) into their effectiveness found ISSP’s reduced the frequency of offending 40% over one year and 39% over two years. They also
reduced the seriousness of offending
and tackled many of the young people’s problems, particularly education, although less consistently in the case of drug misuse, accommodation and mental health needs. That so many youth courts used ISSP is proof of its acceptability to them. Further evidence demonstrates rigorous and consistent delivery of ISSP, though some schemes did fall short of this objective. Overall it appears ISSP’s are effective in meeting the aims of the YJS and are a useful alternative to custody.
The YJS aims to provide fast, efficient procedures from arrest to sentence. This was emphatically highlighted in the HO White Paper (1997):
‘our…pledge to halve the time it takes to get persistent young offenders from arrest to sentencing.’ (Jack Straw)
This was achieved by August 2001 (AC 2004). To meet the aim ‘the 1998’ act promoted pre-trial preparation and reversed R v Khan, which prohibited the sentencing of YO whilst they were awaiting a decision from a Crown Court case. The act also introduced time limits on criminal proceedings involving YO, ensuring that performance was of an acceptable standard. Time limits were more strenuous for persistent YO and if time limits were not met the charges were ‘set aside’. Within the existing framework, the adoption of best practice occurred and performance targets were published by the Youth Justice Board (YJB), providing a strong incentive. The Department for Constitutional Affairs (2003) found that whilst the average time from arrest to sentence in the magistrates’ courts for non-Persistent YO’s fell from 83 days in Feb 1999 to 57 days in June 2003, and the average time for all young defendants in same time period fell from 81 days to 55, efficiency can be further improved by the preparation of timely, good quality case files by the police and CPS and by effective case progression involving all agencies.
The final aim of the YJS as stated in ‘No More Excuses’ (1997) was that there should be partnership between all youth justice agencies to deliver a better, faster system. To meet this ‘the 1998’ act combined a new national framework, the YJB, which oversees the YJS, with new local partnerships provided by YOT(s). The YJB works to fulfil the primary aim of the YJS and ensure that custody for YO is safe, secure and addresses the causes of their offending behaviour. The YJB has eight performance indicators set out in its Corporate and Business Plan 2005/06 to 2007/08 that it uses to assess the performance of the secure estate for children and young people (YJB 2006). To further meet the aim, they identify and promote effective practice, give grants to local authorities to support the development of effective practice, and commission research and publish information. The YJB sets minimum standards and improvement has occurred to all the National Standard measures for 2005/06 when compared to the scores for 2004/05.
The ‘1998 act’ introduced Yots to combine relevant local agencies expertise in order to reduce crime. The combination of a national YJB and local management helps to ensure Yots focus on strategy and service provision. Yots bring together professionals from a range of disciplines to deal with community intervention programmes, the supervision of community punishments and youngsters who have been released from custody, as well as parent and child safety orders. The AC (2004) discovered that magistrates largely appear to be very satisfied with the services provided by Yots and eight out of ten Yot managers find the YJB’s role helpful, a rarity in relations between local and central government. The YJB monitors the performance of Yots against 13 performance measures. This year the YJB (2006) annual statistics show an improvement across all measures from the previous year. However, the AC (2004) has argued measuring performance this way results in a performance monitoring style dictated more by external pressures, than by the need to improve services. There have also been previous accusations that the data quality of reports provided to the YJB by the Yots was inadequate, which weakens the integrity of the YJB’s national performance assessments (AC 2004, pg.65). However, overall the report held Yots to provide an example of a flexible, multi-disciplinary approach to service delivery working in practice.
To meet the aims of the YJS, the AC (2004) proposed reform of the youth court. The ‘Demonstration Project’ ran from October 1998 to March 2000 and was conducted in two court areas. In line with the aims of the YJS, it explored how cultural changes in the youth court – greater openness, engaging directly with the offender, feedback on effectiveness of sentencing and a less adversarial setting could be used to fulfil the aims of the YJS. The project was evaluated by Sheffield University who judged that changes were successful. Both areas decided to make the features permanent, whilst all other youth courts were asked to review their own practices and to adopt those developed in these areas. (HO 2001). However, the AC (2004) discovered that some courts have not had the resources to make changes to their formal layout, and improvements still need to be made regarding interaction. For example, 61% of magistrates said they had at least some difficulty getting young defendants to engage in discussion, which can influence how the court perceives the defendant. This is especially problematic considering that 80% of magistrates surveyed said that attitude and demeanour influences their sentencing decision.
In conclusion, the radical overhaul of the YJS has led to a number of aims, all of which have to adhere to the principle aim of preventing offending. Overall, it appears these aims are effectively being met. YO are now more likely to receive an intervention when they first offend, and the time taken from arrest to sentence has dramatically reduced. In addition, prevention schemes appear effective and adequately funded, and many of the new alternatives to custodial sentences, most notably ISSP’s, are making a positive impact. Most importantly, the YJB sets a clear national framework and Yots seem to successfully co-ordinate and deliver services to YO and the courts. Whilst more could be done to help reform the youth courts, the changes so far appear effective. In regards to custodial sentences, it appears that although DTO’s can be effective, the programmes required to help YO are often not provided and the transition back into the community is not as good as it could be. Furthermore large numbers of YO are still being remanded into custody and the aim of increasing public awareness and confidence in the YJS is not being met. It also appears that the discrepancies regarding both gender and ethnicity need to be addressed by the YJS.
Bibliography
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, London: The Stationary Office.
Ashford, B., 2007. Towards a Youth Crime Prevention Strategy, London: Youth Justice Board.
Audit Commission, 2004. Criminal Justice National Report, Youth Justice 2004, A review of the reformed youth justice system, London: Audit Commission.
Audit Commission, 1996. Misspent Youth, Young people and crime, London: Audit Commission.
Audit Commission, 1998. Misspent Youth ’98, The Challenge for Youth Justice, London: Audit Commission.
Audit Commission, 1999. Misspent Youth ‘99 The Challenge for Youth Justice, London: Audit Commission.
Bala, N. & Hornick, J. & Snyder, H. & Paetsch, J., 2002. Juvenile Justice Systems: An International Comparison of Problems and Solutions, Thompson Educational Publishing, Toronto.
Burrows, M., 2003. Evaluation of the Youth Inclusion Programme, End of Phase One Report, London: Youth Justice Board.
Children Act 2004, London: The Stationary Office.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998, London: The Stationary Office.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, London: The Stationary Office.
Department for Constitutional Affairs, 2003. Time Intervals Survey, London: DCA.
Dodd, T. & Nicholas, S. & Povey, D. & Walker, A., 2004. Crime in England and Wales 2003/2004, London: Home Office.
Ghate, D. & Ramella, M., 2002. Positive Parenting, London: Youth Justice Board.
Graham, J. & Bowling, B., 1995. Young people and crime, London: Home Office.
Gray, E. et al., 2005. Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme: Final Report, London: Youth Justice Board.
Hine, J. & Celnick, A., 2001. A One Year Reconviction Study Of Final Warnings, London: Home Office.
Home Office, 1997. No More Excuses: A new approach to tackling youth crime in England and Wales, London: Home Office.
Home Office, 2001. The Youth Court 2001 The Changing Culture of the Youth Court Good Practice Guide, London: Home Office.
Home Office, 2003. Youth Justice – The next steps, London: Home Office.
Home Office, 2006. Youth Justice: The Statutory principal aim of preventing offending by children and young people, [Online]
[Accessed: 23 December 2007]
Hough, M. & Roberts, J., 2003. Youth Crime and Youth Justice: Public Opinion in England and Wales: ICPR research paper no.1, London: ICPR.
Mattinson, J. & Mirrless, B., 1998. Attitudes to Crime and Criminal Justice: Findings from the 1998 British Crime Curvey, London: Home Office.
National Audit Office/ Audit Commission, 2003. Yot Census, London: Audit Commission.
National Audit Office, 2004. Youth Offending: the delivery of community and custodial sentences, London: National Audit Office
National Audit Office/ Audit Commission, 2003. Magistrates’ Survey, London: National Audit Office/ Audit Commission
The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Order 2000. No. 1160, London: HMSO.
Websters, 2003. Compact English Dictionary, New Lanark: Geddes and Grosset
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, London: The Stationary Office.
Youth Justice Board, 2006. Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (B289), London: Youth Justice Board.
Youth Justice Board, 2006. Youth Justice Annual Statistics 2005/06, London: Youth Justice Board.