News
Insight Issue Four - essential youth sector analysis and reflection – 15 September 2010
15 September 2010
Insight: age of criminal responsibility
What’s the story?
The Daily Telegraph is reporting that the Ministry of Justice is to include the age at which someone can be charged for a crime, currently 10 years-old, as part of a wider review of sentencing and rehabilitation policies. Officials have said that they will now consider a call by Barnardo’s to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 years-old. The report calls for the age to be raised except in cases of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and aggravated sexual assault. The Children’s Commissioner for England and leading Barristers have also called for a review amid concerns that the courts are not the best place to deal with child criminals.
Why is there a call to review the age of criminal responsibility?
According to Barnado's there were 5,671 children aged 10 and 11 given a youth justice disposal in 2008 – only three of those children committed a crime serious enough to see them locked up. The vast majority 5,007 were given a reprimand or final warning.
More than 650 children aged 11 and under were convicted and sentenced in the courts for crimes not serious enough to warrant custody. Of those almost half were sentenced for the less serious summary offences, and only 41 were sentenced for violence against the person offences.
Raising the minimum-age for criminal actions would bring the UK into line with other countries, including Ireland, but has predictably generated a fierce response from victims' rights groups and some centre right newspapers.
Is there a financial case for raising the age of criminal responsibility? Barnardo’s research found that 45 per cent of those children receiving a first tier penalty (such as a referral order) reoffend, this figure rises to 68 per cent for those given a community order, and 74 per cent for those sentenced to custody.
The Audit Commission estimates that a young person in the criminal justice system costs the taxpayer over £200,000 by the age of 16, but one who is given support to stay out costs less than £50,000. It costs £1,300 per person for an electronically monitored curfew order; around £35,000 per year to keep a young person in a young offender institution; and around £9,000 for the average resettlement package per young person after custody.
Yet, even with the high cost of being in the criminal justice system, figures released by the Youth Justice Board show a huge regional variation on spend per head available to Youth Offending Teams, set up to prevent offending and reduce re-offending for children and young people. The funding levels per head range from £36.50 in the Eastern region to £75.50 in the North East.
What are the alternatives to custody?
The cost effectiveness of preventive approaches is well documented. Research into the costs of detached youth work for example found that a project providing a full range of services and in contact with 125 young people a week, would cost £75,000 a year, or £16 for each contact. It concluded that for disadvantaged neighbourhoods, ‘a systematic street-based youth service would cost a small fraction of the amount spent on other services targeted at this group’.
The effectiveness of preventive approaches can be also be seen in an evaluation of Family Intervention Projects (FIPs). The research found that FIPs have had on improving positive outcomes has been impressive. The proportion of families involved in anti-social behaviour and criminal activities had declined from 61% to 7% and those subject to enforcement action (eg, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) almost halved from 45% to 23%
What are the views on the criminalisation of children and young people from the sector?
Children’s Commissioner Maggie Atkinson caused a stir in March when she suggested that “the statistics show that we are in danger of criminalising too many children and young people by locking them up for committing far less serious crimes”. Her view was supported by the Prison Reform Trust, and Professor Rod Morgan, former chairman do the Youth Justice Board. The (then) shadow justice secretary, Dominic Grieve, disagreed, saying that changing the age of criminal responsibility was "not the answer" and that "we need fundamental reform to address the causes of offending by children, including family breakdown, poverty, gang culture and school discipline." The Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg said he agreed with the principle that the nation was "criminalising far too many young children”
The Independent Commission on Youth Crime published a report which set out wide-ranging proposals for reforming the response to youth crime and antisocial behaviour. Published in July 2010 it stated that ‘the Commission finds the reconviction rate for custody unacceptable. We are also dismayed that despite evidence that youth crime has been falling for 16 years, politicians have taken part in a punitive ‘arms race’ over sanctions. This has proved expensive for taxpayers, but done little to improve public confidence’.
Since the Barnardo’s review was published however, Criminologist David Green of the Civitas think-tank stated in the Daily Mail that raising the age of responsibility would be a “mistake”, adding that “Children of ten do know right from wrong… the danger is that this will encourage wrongdoing by more ten and 11-year olds.” Conservative MP Philip Davis appeared to support this view, saying “This is absolutely ridiculous. Some of these children know perfectly well what they are doing… It seems to me kids are growing up faster and faster. If anything, the age of responsibility should be going down – not up”.
Insight: mutuals
Mutuals as service providers
The Coalition Government’s Big Society agenda aims to supporting the creation and expansion of mutuals and co-operatives to deliver services across the public sector. Under section 27 of The Coalition: our programme for government, the Government commits to ‘give public sector workers a new right to form employee-owned co-operatives and bid to take over the services they deliver’.
What is a mutual and why does the Government think this is the right direction?
The Conservative Party outlined the role of a mutual in Power to public sector workers published (February 2010) before the General Election. It describes a mutual as an employee-owned organisation that ‘will be able to decide on management structures, innovate to cut costs and improve the quality of service’.
The rationale is that the Government wants mutuals for ‘people to enter co-operatives to take back control of many areas of our public and civic live from the state – reducing society’s dependence on monolithic government bureaucracies’.
What will happen next?
The Prime Minister launched the Big Society in a speech in Liverpool on 19 July 2010, in which he outlined the targeted support the Government will give to four vanguard communities (Eden Valley in Cumbria, Windsor and Maidenhead, Sutton and Liverpool), where opportunities for organisations like co-operatives can flourish.
The PM outlined three methods in which this would be achieved:
- Decentralise power away from the centre to local government and organisations, including more financial autonomy;
- Make available any Government data at the request of mutuals.
- Provide funding directly to organisations such as mutuals, where finance will be identified from ‘specific cost streams’ in existing Government spending and redirected to mutuals where contracts will be result-based drawn up by central Government.
A Big Society Bank will also be created to help finance social enterprises, charities and voluntary groups through intermediaries, funding that will derive from dormant bank accounts, a third of which was earmarked by the previous Government to spend on youth premises and facilities.
The Cabinet Secretary, Francis Maude, launched a first wave of twelve pathfinder mutuals, giving details on their location and what service they will run. These pathfinders will be supported by expert mentors from businesses and leaders in employee ownership models.
One of the pathfinder mutuals has been set up at Westminster City Council, where employees in Children’s Services and neighbouring local authorities are working to towards creating a mutual organisation. The council is exploring the potential of setting up an ‘arms-length organisation for its children’s services department’ which may trade or run in partnership with independent organisations.
What do others think?
A Children and Young People Now article explores some of the views from people in the sector. British Association of Social Workers joint England manager Nushra Mansuri says a new way of working could benefit social work practice, saying that the ‘current system is not working well’. ‘Our members say they are overburdened by bureaucracy. Maybe mutuals could be the answer.’ However, Unite’s national officer for community, youth workers Doug Nicholls expresses concerns that ‘youth workers are not motivated by profit’. ‘Staff want to be part of a professional service and a working environment that has a focus on support.’ Nicholls says mutual models will also still have to work in a climate of cost cutting and are unlikely to offer staff greater job security.
FPM Training published a paper on Youth First: a new mutual model for young people. The paper explores a new mutual model to provide services for young people. The paper argues that there is a need for new models of delivery which support mutualism. However, it recognises that it must ‘connect the many with the few who do need intensive interventions of one sort or another. Failure to make these connections could lead to worsening divisions in our society and a separation of the poorest and most needy from the majority’
The 2020 Public Trust published recommendations from their commission From social security to social productivity: a vision for 2020 Public Services. Their findings support locally controlled and delivered public services ‘wherever possible’. The report argues that such moves are needed both to revitalise public services at a time of spending cuts and to deal with unsustainable longer-term spending pressures as the population ages.
In the Third Sector magazine, columnist Cathy Pharoah (professor of charity funding at Cass Business School) writes about the implications of the Big Society and the dilemma the charity sector faces – with budget cuts to public sector and ensuring that the needs of beneficiary groups are met. The article says that charities as member organisations can draw on mutualism as a model for delivering public services. Findings from the Charity Market Monitor 2010 shows that people’s charity donations did not fall during the recession. Cathy Pharoah takes optimism from this in saying that people ‘might be willing to give more if they see a need, or to participate more, as the success of events fundraising shows’.
NYA News
NYA’s interactive broadcast takes place on Wednesday 29 September 2010 – all you need to know about talking to young people about their health!
The NYA is launching its revitalised online learning tools on 29 September 2010.
In a first for the Agency, our FREE launch will be taking place in cyber-space.
NYA’s National Programme Manager, Richard McKie will be introducing health-e and presenting an interactive broadcast session - which promises to be fun as well as informative - on the challenges of working with young people about their health at 11 am – direct to you at your computer.
You can watch Richard’s presentation and take part in an on-line discussion, at your desk. You will only need to allow 20 minutes to get the most from our on-line broadcast.
NYA's e-learning tools are aimed at anyone working with young people who would like to know more about how to advise them on health issues, and means you can learn at your own pace and at a time that suits you. Themes covered include: healthy lifestyles, healthy relationships and sex, substance use and mental and emotional well-being.