Early Intervention for the Prevention of Offending in Northern Ireland

549693YJJ0010.1177/1473225414549693Youth JusticeHaydon
research-article2014
Article
Youth Justice
2014, Vol. 14(3) 226 –240
Early Intervention for the
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
Prevention of Offending in
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1473225414549693
yjj.sagepub.com
Northern Ireland
Deena Haydon
Abstract
Policy and practice in education, health, social care and youth justice have increasingly reflected the
assumption that the more ‘risk factors’ a child experiences, the more likely s/he is to suffer ‘negative’
outcomes (including involvement in ‘anti-social’ or ‘criminal’ behaviour). This has led to an emphasis on
targeting individuals considered ‘at risk’ through ‘early intervention’ programmes. At the heart of debate
about such programmes is their intended objective: addressing the needs of any child or young person as
they are identified?; prevention of offending based on assessment of ‘criminogenic’ risk factors?; or diversion
from the formal criminal justice system for those already involved in ‘anti-social’ or ‘criminal’ behaviours?
The needs and circumstances of children defined ‘at risk of offending’ are often the same as those of children
‘in need’. If they are considered ‘in trouble’ rather than ‘troubled’, emphasis is potentially shifted away from
their personal development and well-being towards their regulation and criminalization. Drawing on primary
research with practitioners implementing an ‘Early Intervention for the Prevention of Offending’ Programme
for 8−13 year-olds in Northern Ireland, this article explores the tensions involved in ‘addressing need’ and
‘preventing offending’.
Keywords
‘at risk’, early intervention, ‘in need’, prevention of offending
Introduction
Debate about resolving the problems faced by children and families in the Britain and
Northern Ireland has been significantly affected by the mantra of ‘early intervention’.
However, there is lack of consensus over the meaning of this term, with different interpreta-
tions leading to different types of programme: ‘preventive’ (stopping problems from devel-
oping in the first place); ‘protective’ (protecting children and families with identified ‘risk
factors’ from experiencing problems in the future); ‘remedial’/’therapeutic’ (intervening to
Corresponding author:
Deena Haydon, c/o Childhood, Transition and Social Justice Initiative, School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast,
Northern Ireland, BT7 1NN, UK.
Email: dhaydon01@qub.ac.uk

---

Haydon
227
address emergent problems before they become serious or persistent) (see Statham and
Smith, 2010).
During the 1990s, linking ‘risk factors’ in the child, their school, family and commu-
nity with potential involvement in offending behaviour (Farrington, 1996) and promotion
of the ‘risk factor prevention paradigm’ (see Farrington, 2000: 1) led to an initial emphasis
on the development of programmes targeting children and young people’s potentially
criminal behaviour while encouraging ‘appropriate’ parenting (Home Office, 1997a,
1997b). Exemplified in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act in England and Wales, the ‘new
youth justice’ (see Goldson, 2000a) asserted the principal aim of the youth justice system
as prevention of offending, created a range of new ‘crimes’ and introduced a number of
civil orders in response to ‘anti-social’ behaviour. It also promoted intervention targeting
those ‘at risk’, based on acceptance of the assertion that ‘the greater the number of risk
factors … or risk factor domains … the greater the likelihood of early-onset offending’
(Loeber et al., 2003: 6).
Despite the statement that policy makers generally target preventative approaches at
schools or communities rather than individual children, to avoid the ‘danger of stigmatis-
ing children below the age of criminal responsibility as “potential offenders”’ (Youth
Justice Board, 2005: 4), assessment of the number and prevalence of risk factors in their
lives has been used to identify children aged 8 and above ‘at risk of offending’ and there-
fore targets for ‘prevention of offending’ programmes (see Armstrong, 2004). Removal of
the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax, justified on the basis of enabling courts ‘to
address offending behaviour … at the earliest possible opportunity, and so nip that offend-
ing behaviour in the bud’ (HM Government, 1999: 177), drew under-13s who would
previously have fallen within the remit of welfare agencies into the youth justice system.
Thus, ‘prevention of offending’ within the youth justice system incorporates those ‘at risk
of’ offending plus those at the early stage of involvement in behaviours defined ‘anti-
social’ or ‘offences’.
The ‘risk’ agenda was extended to other areas of social policy in the early 2000s, with
early intervention programmes providing assistance through universal services but also
specifically to children and families considered ‘vulnerable’ or ‘at risk’ of various ‘nega-
tive’ outcomes (see HM Government, 2003). A commitment to early intervention based
on provision of preventative services while responding to those with ‘additional needs’
has underpinned child policy in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland since the
mid-2000s. However, distinctive histories of education, health, child welfare and youth
justice have influenced priorities concerning children defined ‘troubled’ and/or ‘in trou-
ble’ in each UK jurisdiction. According to Horgan (2005: 12), family support in Northern
Ireland has been consistently under-resourced with lower per capita spending, higher lev-
els of child poverty and subsequent family difficulties leading to disproportionate alloca-
tion of resources to statutory child protection rather than investment in universal or
preventative interventions.
Policy and practice in Northern Ireland have also been affected by ‘the Troubles’ – a
euphemism used to denote the period of armed conflict involving state and non-state
groups between 1969 and 1998, when the Belfast/ Good Friday Agreement was signed by
most of the political parties in Northern Ireland, the British and Irish Governments.

---

228
Youth Justice 14(3)
This was based on commitment to democratic and peaceful means of resolving political
differences between Unionists/Loyalists dedicated to retaining union with the British state
and Nationalists/ Republicans favouring a united Ireland. Although contemporary chil-
dren and young people experience markedly different circumstances than did their parents
and grandparents, the legacy of the Conflict remains pervasive (see McAlister et al., 2009;
Roche, 2008).
An ‘Early Intervention for the Prevention of Offending’ Programme targeting 8−13
year olds ‘at risk of offending’ and their families was introduced in Northern Ireland in
2008. Funded by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the
(then) Northern Ireland Office, three organizations were commissioned to deliver the
Programme via five Projects – one in each Trust Area. Qualitative research conducted by
the author in 2010 explored how social constructions of ‘childhood’, ‘risk’, ‘early inter-
vention’ and ‘children’s rights’ informed the Programme’s conceptualization, implemen-
tation and intended outcomes (Haydon, 2014). This included a focus group with staff
delivering the Programme at each Project (n = 26 professionals), semi-structured inter-
views with eighteen referred individuals aged 8−14 and a structured interview with the
project worker of each interviewed child/ young person. Having identified the priorities
underpinning relevant welfare and justice policies concerning prevention of offending,
this article draws on practitioners’ perspectives within the research to reveal how ‘early
intervention for the prevention of offending’ has been interpreted across the Programme
and the issues faced by referred children; highlighting tensions between the objectives of
‘addressing need’ and ‘preventing offending’. Concluding with a critique of current pol-
icy and practice, it suggests the changes required to ensure provision grounded in social
justice.
Prevention of Offending in Northern Ireland Policy 1995−2010
The Conflict has influenced the political structures underpinning policy development in
Northern Ireland, with policy reform limited by a focus on security and counter-terrorism
prior to the signing of the 1998 Good Friday/Belfast Agreement (Tomlinson, 2012).
Periods of direct rule from Westminster ‘encouraged greater integration with Whitehall
machinery [of government] and a natural tendency to look to London for policy initia-
tives’ (Cairney et al., 2009) during the late-1990s and early 2000s. However, ‘policy
transfer’ was a negotiated process at the local level.
Child welfare policy during the late-1990s was significantly influenced by the exist-
ence of integrated structures for Children’s Services Planning. In this, community and
voluntary sectors played a key role supporting statutory agencies as they struggled to
make the shift articulated in the 1995 Children (Northern Ireland) Order away from
assessment of risk of ‘significant harm’ and intervention narrowly focused on ‘child pro-
tection’ towards ‘partnership’ work with families experiencing chronic or serious prob-
lems to support them in providing the care required for children’s health and development
(see Kelly and Pinkerton, 1996). This child care legislation created a duty for every
authority to ‘safeguard and promote the welfare’ of...