Update
| Date | 01 March 1989 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058903600101 |
| Published date | 01 March 1989 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
2
UPDATE
Juvenile
Custody
Abolition
An
authoritative
Advisory
Committee
of
the
Children’s
Society,
chaired
by
Virginia
Bottomley
(now
a junior
minis-
ter
at
the
Department
of
the
Environ-
ment)
and
including
Harry
Fletcher,
NAPO
Assistant
General
Secretary,
was
established
to
review
the
evidence
con-
cerning
penal
custody
for
juvenile
offenders
and
make
recommendations
about
appropriate
provision.
Their
Re-
port
Penal
Custody
for
Juveniles:
The
Line
of Least Resistance
(1988),
makes
firm
recommendations
for
the
early
in-
cremental
abolition
of
penal
custody
for
this
age
group;
to
be
replaced
by
approaches
which
strengthen
com-
munity
and
family
ties.
Among
recommendation:
~
Provision
for
the
residential
and
se-
cure
accommodation
of
juvenile
offenders
should
be
made
by
local
authority
and
social
services
de-
partments
and
overseen
by
the
DoH.
~
A
Juvenile
Crime
Authority
should
be
established
in
every
local
au-
thority
area
to
oversee
local
provi-
sion,
policy
and
practice
and
be
the
responsibility
of
the
Chief
Execu-
tive.
*
Provision
of
community
program-
mes
for
juvenile
offenders
by
local
authorities
should
be
mandatory,
in
line
with
DoH
guidelines
and
approved
by
the
Juvenile
Crime
Authority.
*
Girls
and
boys
should
be
treated
identically;
discriminatory
practice
and
outcomes
to
the
disadvantage
of
black
and
ethnic
minority
young
people
should
be
monitored
and
challenged.
A
number
of
their
recommendations,
such
as
the
abolition
of
the
criminal
care
order
and
the
introduction
of
a
condition
of
residence
as
an
adjunct
to
supervision
orders,
have
been
incorpo-
rated
in
the
Children
Bill
currently
be-
fore
Parliament.
From
the
Children’s
Society,
Edward
Rudolf
House,
Margery
Street,
London
WC1X
OJL
4B
Day
Centres
in
Action
Revived
Home
Office
Research
Unit
in-
terest
in
probation
work
is
welcome
(the
last
Study
addressing
a
mainline
Service
theme
was
back
in
1979)
and
it
isn’t
surprising
that
Schedule
II
4B
and
Day
Centres
now
receive
scrutiny,
given
their
mushrooming
but
mongrel
development
since
1982
and
the
Home
Office’s
wish
to
gain
interest
from
their
investment.
The
author
points
out
that
the
pro-
ject
was
designed
as
a
modest,
descrip-
tive
exercise
and
he
does
not
dis-
appoint.
From
the
tally
of
Day
Centres
freeze-framed
in
mid-1984,
50
received
formal
questionnaires
(44
responded)
and
a
cross-sample
of
six
supplied
de-
tailed
case
studies.
The
results
beg
more
questions
than
they
answer
and
rely
heavily
on
the
subjective
views
of
Centre
organisers.
Not
surprisingly,
it
proved
impossible
to
assess
what
suc-
cess
Centres
have
had
in
preventing
re-
offending.
Nevertheless,
this
snapshop
of
the
state
of
the
art
as
practised
in
late
1986
should
prove
influential
both
in
To continue reading
Request your trial