Youth work ought to be offered to those in custody

The first deals with a proportionate response to the offence committed; the second with making good the harm done. But what about the third?

Certainly, there has been significant emphasis over the past decade on engagement with education and training, addressing substance misuse and mental health issues, and supporting accommodation and resettlement. However, there has been little debate about a place for youth work. This is surprising, for youth work is alive and kicking in many of the community-based initiatives undertaken by youth offending teams, although it operates under many flags of convenience and is often therefore rather invisible and unrecognised.

It is a different story in custody. Provision is patchy, to say the least, and youth workers themselves may feel it is a betrayal of their principles, especially around the sanctity of the voluntary relationship, to work in settings in which young people have few free choices. Paradoxically, youth work in such places may be all the more important, for that very reason.

CYP Now gave an insight into the value and impact of youth work provision and practice at Cookham Wood young offender institution (‘Rehabilitation inside’, CYP Now 15-28 May). That work has included the establishment of a youth club, the provision of information and the promotion of youth participation. It also offers the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award (DofE). A few years ago, an evaluation of the DofE within the juvenile secure estate pointed to a range of benefits accruing to those taking part, including more positive attitudes, new skills, greater maturity and empathy, and satisfaction – through volunteering – in “making good”.

Most significantly, perhaps, was the inculcation of the belief that alternative futures are attainable, rather than fatalistically accepting the probability of a return to offending behaviour. The DofE report talks of its particular brand of youth work contributing to the “repair of discredited identities”.

The Cookham Wood story gives good reason to presume that broader forms of youth work within secure settings can make a similar contribution, even if youth workers often prefer to depict themselves as gardeners (cultivating personal development) rather than mechanics (fixing problems).

No magic bullet
Youth work is no magic bullet. There is a risk that too much will be asked of it in reducing reoffending rates. That is not its task, though such outcomes are a likely by-product of its work. There is a risk that youth work within secure institutions becomes instrumentalised and harnessed inappropriately to an institution’s programme and agenda. So there are important lines in the sand to be advocated and defended. But to deny young offenders in custody an authentic youth work offer is to deny some of our most disadvantaged young people opportunities and experiences that we maintain are important for the rest of the youth population. Social justice has to find its place in criminal justice if young offenders are to have half a chance of switching tracks.

If we accept the value and contribution of youth work to young people’s lives in terms of relationships, experience, participation and development, then, for young offenders – both in and out of custody – surely part of their just desserts should be a youth work offer.

Howard Williamson is professor of European youth policy at the University of Glamorgan