Community Courts to Address Youth Offending: A Lost Opportunity?
| Author | Susie Atherton |
Introduction
The focus on youth offending and youth justice policy is timely due to the significant impact spending cuts have had on youth services, stubbornly high re-offending rates (up to 68%) for those leaving youth custody (NACRO, 2011; Ministry of Justice, 2013) and the continued demonization of youth, especially as offenders, in the media. Official statistics tell us the number of young people entering the Youth Justice System (YJS) has declined, as has the number in custody (Ministry of Justice, 2013). However, concerns remain about the complex needs of young offenders, especially those in custody, as 33% of them have been in care, 17% report special educational needs (the national figure is 3%), 69% link their re-offending to substance misuse and 63% reported needing help with accommodation (Youth Justice Board, 2015). In addition, there are increases in incidences of self-harm in Youth Offender Institutions (YOIs), attributed to the conditions and regime, where young people can find themselves locked up for 23 hours a day (Bateman, 2015). Despite these concerns, the YJS seems to persist in policies to control and punish (Muncie & Hughes, 2002; Muncie, 2006), with a focus on formal responses, such as youth offending teams (YOTs), numerous sanctions in the community and custodial sentences. Whilst youth courts do operate in a less formal way than Magistrates' and Crown courts, their function is one of administering justice through punishment and messages of deterrence, with some acknowledgement to risk factors through YOT assessments (Youth Justice Board, 2013).
Community justice centres (CJCs) in the USA and community courts in the UK aim to deal with low level offending and anti-social behaviour, improve citizens' quality of life and offer alternatives to adversarial court processes, using a problem solving approach. This can identify the contributory factors or causes of offending, which can then be addressed through the courts signposting services (Mair & Millings, 2011) or in the case of CJCs, providing services co-located within the court (Karp & Clear, 2000; Wolf, 2006). CJCs and community courts offer a way for offenders to access resources and networks which previously they have been unaware of or excluded from, such as education and treatment for mental health and/or substance misuse issues. In the USA, CJCs offer this to young people, as part of the community they serve and are geographically located in (Wolf, 2006), whereas community courts in the UK, as part of the Magistrates' court system, follow the principles of problem solving by signposting offenders to services to meet their needs (Llewelyn-Thomas & Prior, 2007; Mair & Millings, 2011). The ethos of youth work is to value informal practice and voluntary participation (Jeffs & Smith, 2005), working within the framework of legal processes for young offenders (Wood & Hine, 2013). This fits with the approach of CJCs and community courts, to acknowledge the legal requirements of the courts, using the courtroom as a place for this and also to identify needs and present solutions. CJCs in the USA use peer group youth courts, to deal with misdemeanours by young people (Anderson, 1999), and both community courts in the USA and UK adopt less formal approaches to listen to the offender (defendants must enter a guilty plea to have access to the services of the community court) and try to understand how the local community can support them (Llewelyn-Thomas & Prior, 2007).
This article will consider how CJCs in the USA and community courts in the UK can address youth crime and deviance, in the framework of social capital and desistance theory to explore the individual and social factors which put young people at risk of offending or re-offending (Home Office, 2006). Social capital theory assesses the resources and networks accessible by citizens to solve problems and reach their potential (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1990; ONS, 2001; Leonard & Onyx, 2007) and desistance theory has developed understanding about the various mechanisms ex-offenders adopt to cease offending. This includes changing self-identity (Laub & Sampson, 2003), maturation and the development of social bonds (Maruna, 2001) and establishing offenders' 'locus of control' (Farrall & Calverley, 2006), i.e. whether capacity to change is part of their identity, or something they attribute to those around them. CJCs and community courts work in partnership with a range of agencies, and in the case of CJCs are physically located in the community they serve, so it is important to understand how well the community can support its more vulnerable citizens and those with complex needs. Desistance theory describes the personal and social contexts of ex-offenders attempting to change (King, 2012), along with the need to develop social bonds, so the local community and state agencies become an important part of these processes. Community courts need to signpost and refer offenders to services, such as healthcare, housing assistance, out of school activities for young people and charities, which are all forms of social capital 'resources'. It is also important to understand how well citizens are aware of these, able to access them and even participate in their provision. The networks required for this are identified by social capital theory, and Putnam (2000) describes this well as two different forms of social capital, bridging and bonding. He suggests that 'bonding social capital constitutes a kind of sociological super glue, whereas bridging social capital provides a sociological WD40' (2009:19). Bridging social capital is necessary for galvanising citizens into action, whereas bonding social capital is necessary in order to facilitate the coexistence of citizens in a community. These can be tested by the impact of crime and disorder, and there are concerns that forms of bonding social capital can exclude those who do not fit established norms (Garland, 1990). In light of this, it becomes clear what can hinder the work of CJCs and community courts, if the provisions needed to meet the complex needs of young offenders are not in place, and networks are affected by citizens' negative perceptions of young offenders. Mair and Millings (2011) emphasise the 'community engagement' role of the CJC in North Liverpool, which has now closed down, and this was clearly important to inform citizens of the work of the community court and how it could help them to consider new ways of 'doing justice.' Therefore, this article will explore the potential for community courts in the UK to better assess the needs of young people as offenders or at risk of offending, within the legal requirements of the YJS and working in line with the ethos of other youth services.
Community justice centres and community courts
CJCs emerged in the USA in the early 1990s, the first being the Midtown Community Court in Manhattan and followed closely by Red Hook, in Brooklyn. The Red Hook CJC provided court services and a range of support services for all local residents, such as activities for young people, drug and alcohol treatment and access to education and training (Llewellyn-Thomas & Prior, 2007). The broader aims of the court are to improve the quality of life for residents, offering a 'dual commitment to changing the lives of individual offenders and the quality of life in communities' (Lee et al., 2013:3) by dealing with misdemeanours and offering alternatives to custody and fines. Offenders were also strictly monitored to ensure compliance with their sentence, which could include treatment for health issues such as addiction, social services, housing and access to work placements (ibid). A review of the achievements of the Red Hook CJC demonstrated it had also transformed the local community, into a place where residents felt safe and expressed greater confidence in the justice system, meaning that 10 years after its' introduction, the CJC is a 'prominent fixture in the Red Hook neighborhood' and 'arguably the best known community court in the world' (Lee et al., 2013:3). Another feature of the Red Hook CJC was the use of young people in the court to deal with youth offending, using peer 'pressure'...
To continue reading
Request your trial