The tragic events triggered a fundamental rethink of youth services in the London Borough of Southwark. As our feature demonstrates (see p14), the borough has since been a pioneer of early intervention techniques, engaging young people who have been referred by schools or social services as being at risk of involvement in crime. The 13 young people who became suspects after Damilola's death were known to different agencies but information about them was not being shared.
Southwark became one of the first boroughs in England and Wales to establish a youth offending team, in 2001, made up of staff from probation, police, education, health and social services. It subsequently became one of the first areas to operate a youth inclusion and support panel (YISP), a multi-agency group funded through the Youth Justice Board that is responsible for identifying eight- to 13-year-olds at risk of offending and administering a programme of tailored support. This might take the form of parenting classes, leisure activities or work around building self-esteem or managing anger. Indeed, YISPs are a healthy demonstration of youth work. With 86 per cent of young people in Southwark who have been through these panels not coming to further police notice, the borough deserves much credit.
Such measures have even gained acclaim from the right. But early identification and intervention have their detractors. The academic community is uncomfortable with what it deems the criminalisation of social welfare and the labelling of young people before they enter the criminal justice system. Moreover, it is debatable whether initiatives such as YISPs would have saved those like the Preddie brothers from a life of crime.
Early identification should not just be viewed through a prism of crime prevention. It is just as much about education and achievement. There is no escaping the fact that youth crime and antisocial behaviour derive in the main from poverty and disadvantage. That is the much tougher lesson of Damilola's killing.
