Referral Orders: Some Reflections on Policy Transfer and ‘What Works’
| Author | Adam Crawford,Tim Newburn,Rod Earle |
| Date | 01 December 2002 |
| Published date | 01 December 2002 |
| DOI | 10.1177/147322540200200303 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Referral Orders: Some Reflections on Policy Transfer
and ‘What Works’
Rod Earle, Tim Newburn and Adam Crawford
Correspondence: Rod Earle, Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics,
Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE. Email: r.earleVlse.ac.uk
Abstract
In a recent article in this journal, John Muncie (2002) argued that contemporary youth
justice was increasingly influenced by ideas imported from abroad. Most notably, he
suggested, the dominant influence consisted of a ‘partial and piecemeal’selection of
elements of restorative justice from Australasia and Scotland, together with the utilization
of a more American-influenced ‘what works’agenda. Using the example of Referral
Orders, this article challenges his contention that this provides a ‘dubious basis for
reform’. We argue that in fact the Referral Orders’pilots were both a positive example of
policy transfer and, though not unproblematic, were also illustrative of some of the
important aspects of the ‘what works’agenda.
The New Youth Justice and Policy Transfer
In an earlier article in this journal (Earle and Newburn, 2002), it was argued that the
introduction of Referral Orders to the youth justice system in England and Wales has generated
interesting and largely productive tensions for both practitioners and policy makers. To a
significant degree these tensions are only to be expected given how recent the reforms are and,
in part, how challenging they are. In a paper in the same issue of the journal, John Muncie
(2002) contended that some of the dangers and difficulties in contemporary youth justice are
the result of the unthinking transposition of policies from other jurisdictions to the UK. In
particular, he suggested that the positive potential of restorative justice was being undermined
by the dominant influence of North American punitiveness and, more specifically, the impact
of ‘what works’ideology. Whilst agreeing in part with his analysis, we wish to depart from it
in two crucial respects. First, we question the extent to which policy transfer in this area can
be characterised as ‘unthinking’. Second, whilst we concur with Muncie’s argument that any
unthinking application of ‘what works’notions is not a good basis for criminal justice reform,
in our view the introduction of Referral Orders was a positive illustration of how evaluation
can be built into the reform process.
On coming to power New Labour was determined that the ‘nothing works’pessimism of
previous eras would not be the hallmark of its new youth justice (indeed, its penal policy and
practice generally). Much of the impetus for this came from the Treasury which sought to
ensure not only value for money, but demanded an evidence-base for the proposals it was
being asked to fund. A Comprehensive Spending Review had resulted in a demand that the
Home Office provide a summary of ‘what works’or, failing that, ‘what is promising’(Goldblatt
and Lewis, 1998). Like much of New Labour’s criminal justice programme in its first
administration, ‘what works’was one of many ideas imported from other jurisdictions –in this
case the United States (see Newburn, 2002a). Among the other apparently American imports
were so-called ‘zero tolerance policing’, three strikes sentencing, the drugs czar and youth
curfews (Newburn, 2002b). Despite the visibility of American influence within youth justice
policy, arguably the most notable import –the ideas and practices associated with restorative
To continue reading
Request your trial