The State of Youth Justice 2020
Report by: Dr Tim Bateman on behalf of the National Association for Youth Justice (August 2020)
Theme 1
Race and criminalisation
Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) children, viewed as a single group, are over-represented in the youth justice system: 27 per cent of children cautioned or convicted in 2019 were of BAME origin, compared with 18 per cent in the general population. Over the past decade this proportion has nearly doubled, rising from 14 per cent in 2010 (Ministry of Justice/Youth Justice Board). The term BAME is commonly used in policy and published data but can elide a broad range of difference and does not reflect the diverse range of experiences of specific “minority ethnic” groups. Relative to the composition of the wider 10-17 population, Asian children have been consistently under-represented among those receiving a substantive youth justice disposal. By contrast, 2.8 times as many black children come to the attention of the youth justice system as would be expected, given the composition of the general population within the relevant age range, and the extent of over-representation for this group has risen substantially since 2010. The representation of mixed heritage children in the youth justice population was consistent with the composition of the general community in 2010, but in the intervening years has doubled.
Wider inequalities provide an important context for explaining racial disparity in the youth justice system. The evidence for disproportionate levels of social exclusion among BAME children is overwhelming and is explored in detail in the report. For example, black children are twice as likely, and mixed heritage children 50 per cent more likely, to be excluded from school than their white counterparts. In 2017/18, 89 per cent of boys in young offender institutions (YOIs) reported that they had been excluded from school (Green, 2019). Almost one in four children in local authority care are from a BAME background, with the most significant disproportionality shown by black and mixed heritage children. BAME children are also considerably higher risk of being a victim of crime, and there is a strong correlation between victimisation and offending Youth Justice Board data shows.
Almost one in three children arrested for a notifiable offence in 2019 was of BAME origin. In 2019, black people were subject to stop and search at almost 10-times the rate for the white population according to Home Office stop and search statistics. It is clear, too, that enduring socio-economic inequalities cannot account for the scale of increased disproportionality over the last decade. The fall in first-time entrants has been less pronounced for BAME children than for their white counterparts. Between 2008 and 2019, the number of white first-time entrants to the youth justice system declined by 91 per cent but the equivalent decline for BAME children was 80 per cent, suggesting that increased diversion has benefited the former group to a much greater extent.
Overrepresentation increases in line with the intensity of youth justice intervention: BAME children who enter the system are more likely to receive harsher levels of punishment. BAME children comprised 26 per cent of children receiving a formal youth justice sanction but accounted for 35 per cent of those convicted, indicating that they were less likely to be cautioned. More worryingly, 42 per cent of children receiving a custodial sentence in 2019 were from a BAME background. In 2019, 48 per cent of children given a longer-term custodial sentence in the crown court for more than two years were from a BAME background. As shown in the graphic, while in May 2005 minority ethnic children accounted for one quarter of those in custody, by the same month in 2019, that proportion had risen to 51 per cent. Between 2005 and 2019, the white population of the secure estate has declined by 80 per cent; the equivalent reduction for BAME children was just 38 per cent.
Disproportionality within the youth justice system is widespread, longstanding and deep rooted; the causes are complex and intertwined. In these circumstances, developing effective strategies to reduce it, is challenging. The Youth Justice Board’s latest business plan includes a commitment to “influence the youth justice system to treat children fairly and reduce over-representation”. Honouring that commitment will involve the promotion of reform where explanation is lacking. Adopting a child first practice that focuses on the long-term wellbeing of all children in conflict with the law, rather than seeing them in terms of the risks they embody, will also enhance the prospects that youth justice interventions do not exacerbate racial inequalities.
Implications for practice
- Substantial investment in community-based provision for young people in disadvantaged communities, reversing years of under-resourcing, is a prerequisite of reducing inequity for BAME children.
- Practitioners at every level of the youth justice system must be supported to examine their professional practice at an individual and organisational level, with the aim of reducing the impact of racial bias and tackling existing inequalities. Discriminatory actions, behaviours, policies and procedures must be identified and challenged, and plans to address them must be subject to rigorous accountability.
- Relationships of trust might be improved by ensuring that staffing in the justice system is representative of the communities it serves, through the introduction of targets.
Theme 2
Child first approach
While welcoming the explicit adoption of a child first ethos by the Youth Justice Board (YJB), the report contends that much of current practice, and the guidance that underpins it, continues to be influenced by an understanding of youth crime that relies on a risk paradigm and a commitment to punishment.
The publication of new National Standards in 2019 identify four principles that underpin the YJB’s child first approach:
- Prioritising the best interests of children and recognising their rights
- Building on children’s strengths through future-oriented interventions to facilitate the development of pro-social identities that promotes empowerment and encourages desistance
- Encouraging active participation and working in a collaborative manner with children and their families
- Minimal intervention and maximising diversion to promote “a childhood removed from the justice system”.
The specification of these principles is indicative of a clear distinction between the philosophy now espoused by the YJB and that which informed the previous iteration of the standards. The section on out-of-court disposals does distinguish diversion into “more suitable child-focussed systems” from formal out-of-court sanctions but requires that the latter should be “prompt, robust and deliver targeted and tailored interventions”. The section on court work does require that a strategy should be in place to reduce the “unnecessary” use of custodial remands but makes no comment on the desirability of minimising custodial sentencing and contains no guidance at all on the nature of pre-sentence report proposals, an important consideration in determining the level of child imprisonment.
The extent to which the YJB’s move towards a more child-friendly policy orientation will automatically lead to a changed youth justice practice is, accordingly to the paper, hard to discern. The “localism agenda”, which has informed the delivery of local public services for a decade, means that the YJB, in common with other central policy making bodies, has less sway than it previously did. This reduced influence is likely to have been reinforced by the diminishing contribution that the board makes to youth offending team (YOT) budgets: between 2011 and 2019, the YJB annual grant to YOTs fell from almost £145m to less than £72m.
The limited research on the issue highlights an increasing diversity in models of youth justice practice. Smith and Gray (2019) point out that youth justice academic commentary has tended to convey “a relatively uniform picture” of the youth justice system, which is replicated broadly at the level of practice (Smith and Gray, 2019). They contend that such a “monolithic view” fails to capture adequately real-world applications of policy shifts at the centre. Drawing on an analysis of 34 local authority youth justice plans, covering the period up to 2016 when the Taylor Review first gave “child first” an official gloss of approval, they identify a range of contrasting models of provision, ranging from a more traditional “offender management” approach that prioritises addressing the criminogenic risk factors of children subject to formal criminal justice sanctions, to, what they characterise as, a “children and young people first” model, in which YOTs have effectively been dissolved into a wider youth support service. Other evidence tends to support the suggestion that practice does not automatically follow shifts in policy. The introduction of a new assessment framework, in the form of AssetPlus, was intended to engender a shift in practice from one informed by addressing risks, to one that embraced a future orientated, strengths-based, focus on desistance. Kathy Hampson’s research found that shifts in practice resulting from the revision of assessment procedures fell far short of what had been anticipated. YOT assessments continued, in large part, to be framed through a risk lens, generating intervention plans that were “offence-focused”, highlighting children’s deficits and past mistakes, rather than orientated on their future and building on their strengths (Hampson, 2018).
More than three years have elapsed since the Youth Custody Improvement Board concluded that the secure estate for children was not fit for purpose (Wood et al, 2017) and since HM Chief Inspector of Prisons confirmed that no YOIs or STCs could be considered safe places to detain children; but closure of these institutions appears no closer than it did then. At the same time, any potential reform of the court system appears to have been sidelined despite Taylor’s endorsement of a radically different model. Recent research confirms that the youth court cannot be considered a forum that treats those who appear before it as children first. A study, published by the Centre for Justice Innovation, confirms that many children were unable to follow proceedings and it was common for them to leave the courtroom without understanding the outcome or the rationale for any decisions made. Children rarely felt that they were listened to and some considered that the way they were treated in court was disrespectful. Frequently, children reported that they did not trust the court to be neutral and considered that the purpose of the hearing was to punish rather than understand them (RobinD’Cruz, 2020). The Youth Justice Board, whatever its aspirations, has limited influence in these spheres. In this context, it is clear that it would be premature to describe the experiences of children in conflict with the law as being predicated on child first principles.
Implications for practice
- Policies must treat justice-involved children as children first and foremost and be clearly distinct from adult policies. They must actively promote children’s rights stated in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, reflect their developmental stage of maturation and capacity for change.
- Places and processes should be adapted to maximise the understanding and participation of children, including the use of child-friendly language. Professionals should be properly trained to understand child-specific issues and the paramount importance of children’s welfare.
- Opportunities to divert children away from the youth justice system and custody must be continuously explored, alongside supportive, individually tailored interventions for children and their support networks.
