Referral Orders
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050204900213 |
| Author | Robin Tuddenham |
| Date | 01 June 2002 |
| Published date | 01 June 2002 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
165
Warburton, Paul J. Turnball and Mike
Hough. Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Drugs and Alcohol Research
Programme, York Publishing Services.
Price £13.95. Julian Buchanan
Senior Lecturer in Social Work,
North East Wales Institute
Referral Orders
The final evaluation report on the referral
order pilots was published on the
2nd April 2002, the day that they were
implemented on a national basis. The
report presents the findings of the
18 month evaluation into the eleven pilot
areas, and is based upon data analysis and
interviews with young people, carers,
court users and partnership agencies.
The evaluation suggests that on the
whole, pilots successfully managed the
implementation of referral orders and
youth offender panels. The report
identifies that the pilot areas were
successful in recruiting local community
panel members within a short period, but
the time pressures meant that they were
rarely representative of the communities
they served. The majority of volunteers
were women, and there was a shortage of
younger volunteers, and those from
manual backgrounds or the unemployed.
Subsequent recruitment has targeted these
groups.
Youth Offending Teams developed
different ways to manage referral orders,
but those areas which worked to an
inclusive model, where all YOT staff were
involved, tended to predominate as service
provision expanded. The model of
restorative justice within referral orders
was supported by the Courts, although
concerns did develop as the pilots
progressed in relation to the following
issues:
•Loss of discretion for sentencers for
first time young offenders;
•Lack of information about what
happened to the young person after they
left court;
•Use of referral orders for minor
offences.
The community panels struggled to
meet the 15 day timescale, which also
limited contact with victims. This
timescale was extended to 20 days prior to
national rollout. Observation suggested
that many young people played an active
part in the meetings.
Two-thirds of community panel
members stated that they had a very good
working relationship with the YOT, and
became more confident in steering panels
as their confidence grew. Eighty-five per
cent stated that more should be done to
encourage victim participation.
The young people were generally
happy with the process, with 91% stating
they understood what was going on at the
meeting. Three-quarters stated they did not
feel pushed into agreeing with something
against their will. Over two-thirds stated
that the panels helped them to understand
the consequences of their offending.
Parents had a high degree of satisfaction
with the process, particularly when
compared to the Youth Court.
The low involvement of victims was
the most disappointing feature of the
pilots, with attendance in only 13% of
cases. Where a victim did attend, their
experience of the process was
overwhelmingly positive. This seemed to
be a problem of implementation rather
than principle, and was the main area to
attend to in the national rollout.
The contracts drawn up by panels most
commonly included some form of
reparative activity (40%), followed by
offending behaviour work (9%),
employment/careers advice (6%), and
victim awareness work (5%). Young
people completed the contracts
successfully in 74% of cases, with higher
completion on shorter orders. In just under
a quarter of cases, the young person was
To continue reading
Request your trial