Still Working with ‘Involuntary Clients’ in Youth Justice
| Author | Sean Creaney |
Introduction
Young people are not often provided with opportunities to actively participate, engage and influence service design and delivery in youth justice (Haines and Case, in press; Hart & Thompson, 2009). This could be due to the idea of participation being inconsistent with an emphasis on punishment (Beyond Youth Custody, 2014). Indeed participatory principles conflict somewhat with the whole premise of youth justice intervention and in particular the notion of just deserts (Beyond Youth Custody, 2014). Moreover, young people who have offended have not only committed a crime but contravened normative social expectations regarding how one is expected to behave and in turn forfeited the right to have a say (Hart & Thompson, 2009). However, in accordance with international standards, treaties, and conventions – most notably the United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child – the participatory rights of children in conflict with the law should be promoted. That said rather than being human rights based, practice is very much focused on compliance, compulsion and coercion (Haines & Case, in press).
This paper explores the various challenges associated with promoting the active participation of young people who have offended. Particularly the paper explores the difficulties engaging those who are disengaged, as such individuals may perceive the support on offer as unnecessary and intrusive. The article argues that the topic of participation is in urgent need of development and thus requires fresh political, academic and practice attention. It also argues that in order to reconcile this lack of user-led engagement and experiences of disempowerment the priority should be throughout the Youth Justice System to involve young people in decision-making processes.
A lack of active participation from children and young people in the design and delivery of youth justice services has culminated in the effectiveness of the Youth Justice System being reduced (Haines & Case, in press). There has been little independent scrutiny and to add to that strategic direction on how children’s voices are or should be accessed in practice (Hart & Thompson, 2009). Ideas will be put forward with regard to how youth justice practice could become more participatory and engaging, particularly with those who are “involuntary clients” or in other words difficult to engage.
Participation in youth justice
To participate is to be involved and have some say over the process. With regard to the use of participatory approaches across the tariff of youth justice interventions and providers of services, ‘the involvement of young people in their own assessment is underdeveloped and, even where they provide useful information; this may not be used to inform the plans that are made…’ (Hart & Thompson, 2009:4). Indeed rather than promoting their active participation and starting from the child’s wants and needs – and embedding such practice throughout assessment, planning, intervention and supervision – practice is very much adult-led and disempowering for the child (Case & Haines, 2009; Haines & Case, in press). It must be acknowledged, though, that the Youth Justice Board recognise the importance of service user involvement in assessment and is in the process of implementing (2014/2015) a new and improved assessment framework that claims to give much greater emphasis to young people’s wishes and feelings (Creaney & Smith, 2014; Haines & Case, in press). This tool may allow practitioners to devise broader, more proactive solutions to tackle identifiable issues as the assessment framework intends to be more holistic and sensitive to children's needs and wishes. In so doing, it is future orientated, concerned with strengths and aspirations rather than risky behaviours (Haines & Case, in press).
That said work with young people who offend tends to be conducted 'on' rather than 'with' children - perhaps understandable in a context of enforcement. Practice has tended to adopt more controlling and repressive mechanisms that are coercive, often non-negotiable in nature and disengaging (Haines & Case, in press). Practitioners rarely provide opportunities to children to actively participative in their care (Beyond Youth Custody, 2014). This could be for a number of reasons not least that practitioners are constrained by the court ordered nature of the work and more specifically the rigid conditions that must be imposed. However, the Referral Order is perhaps one example of where the Youth Justice System has tried to involve young people in the decision-making process.
Referral Orders are community sentences given to children between the ages of 10 to 17 appearing in a youth or magistrates court for the first time. As part of the court order the child attends a panel meeting, where, the space is provided for young people to actively participate in the process. Indeed, as part of the Referral Order the aim is for perpetrators and victims to ‘actively participate’ in the process - rather than be passive spectators – in order to resolve the conflict. The idea is that power and control can be equally shared between the two parties. Not only can the victim and the offender have a say and be heard, the perpetrator can be provided with opportunities to repair the harm caused by engaging in positive, constructive activities. However, such restorative principles are built into a system that is punitive and deficit-led where young people are considered wholly responsible for their actions. Indeed, the emphasis is on blaming tendencies rather than understanding the context or wider socio-structural issues such children experience that can have adverse effects on attitudes, behaviour and development. Referral Order panels provide a platform for young people to share their viewpoints on how the harm caused can be repaired. However, it appears young people involved in such panels merely participate rather than actively engage in the process (Newburn, et al., 2002). On the other hand, as part of the children’s hearing system in Scotland young people are not only listened to but what they say is acted upon as they are deemed to be key decision makers in the process (McAra & Young, 1997).
Young people in England and Wales involved in crime and subject to court orders, generally, are often unsure of the process in terms of what is involved on their part: children often do not feel in control, they feel powerless (Hazel, 2002 in Robinson, 2014). What happens in practice is children co-operate and comply with the conditions of the order in order to simply ‘get through their sentences’ (Hazel, 2002 in Robinson, 2014:47). Interestingly, in a study seeking young people’s views and opinions on practice supervision Hazel et al., (2002:14) noted that ‘while they started out feeling in control of their actions, accounts of young offenders became striking in their lack of “agency”. Giving in, submitting, becoming...
To continue reading
Request your trial