During 2015-2016 in England, 36,300 young people received a caution, non-custodial conviction or were released from custody for proven offences. Within one year, 13,700 of these offenders committed a proven re-offence. It means that 37.9% of young offenders during 2015-16 had reoffended. (Youth Justice Board, 2017)
The government continue to put measures in place to prevent young offender recidivism whether they be formal based interventions such as Social Service involvement or forms of punishment to to deter reoffending, or whether they be social based interventions such as school based intervention, sports based intervention or community based intervention.
However, what is the best way that has been proven, to prevent youth reoffending or does it vary depending on the individual involved and the circumstances surrounding their offences?
The introduction of a juvenile justice system came into place in the United States during the 1800’s. Prior to it’s introduction, it was the family unit that was the main control of youth behaviour. (Bartollas & Miller, 2011)
An unstable home life is one of the main affecters on youth offending. Domestic violence, lack of discipline/boundaries, and absent parent figures are some of the main parts of an unstable family unit that can lead to youth offending. In this regard, formal based interventions, such as social services, may play a better role in helping to reduce the likeliness of youths reoffending by working with the family to deal with any issues and create a more stable home life. Formal based intervention has a increased likeliness of success when more than one agency is involved with the offender and are actively involved in attempts to resolve the issues that may lead to the offender reoffending, (Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith, 2007).
In the year 2000, the government introduced scheme to tackle youth offending called the Youth Inclusion Program (YIP). YIP is a community based intervention method that is funded by the government to tackle youth offending. The programme has four aims: to reduce arrest rates in the target group by 60%; to reduce truancy by at least a third; to reduce school exclusions; and to reduce recorded crime in the area by 30%. (John Graham, 2006)
YIP works with 8-17 year olds to create programs specific for each individual to help prevent youth offending and reoffending. Each individual works 1 on 1 with a trained youth worker to identify where their problems lay and how best to tackle the issues. The YIP also runs after school activities, residential activities, and also day trips during school holidays. for young people and keep them from engaging in anti social behaviours. However, these ‘rewards’ are earned through positive behaviour and can be lost if the young person engages in anti-social behaviours. The YIP also liaise with the young person’s family and school to help monitor behaviours and tackle issues as they arise.
Those who actively engaged in the programme showed significant improvement as arrest rates fell by 65%. (Morgan Harris Burrows, 2003). This shows that the existence of after-school recreational activities or sport can reduce juvenile delinquency by a great extent.
School based intervention is also a common way that society attempts to deal with young offenders and attempt to prevent reoffending. This can vary from social based school programs to placing at risk youths in school inclusion programs.
Social based school intervention primarily focuses on voluntary after school activities that are specifically targeted towards young people who are a high risk of offending. These programs allow young people to form new social bonds, keeping them away from those who may cause them to reoffend, and to keep them from placing themselves into situations that could lead to reoffending by introducing new activities to combat boredom. However, these programs are voluntary and therefore it is not always likely that a young person, who has already committed an offence, will actively engage in these programs, especially if there are issues surrounding friendships within their peer group.
Social based school programs have been shown to be effective at reducing offending and reoffending among at-risk youths and youth offenders. (Allen-Meares, Montgomery, & Kim, 2013)
Community based programs such as National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO) focus on helping to rehabilitate young offenders. Their mission statement is “We positively change lives, strengthen communities, enhance social inclusion, reduce crime & prevent offending behaviour”.
NACRO operates all over the country and has helped many offenders to gain access to education, secure housing, and much more. They operate in 14 prisons, young offender institutions and one secure training centre, offering a wide range of practical support. They also liaise with schools to help identify at risk youths and to give them support to prevent them from offending.
This sort of support can help to give a young offender a second chance. The way where NACRO helps to prevent reoffending is by helping offenders gain the skills in an environment which is conducive to their learning, which includes setting rules which are applied consistently, rewarding constructive behaviour and taking prompt and appropriate action to minimise disruption. This in turn can, therefore, lead to further education, training, or employment. By working one on one with each young person, it allows them to give intensive support that then allows that young person to fulfil their potential. (NACRO, 2017)
Sport based intervention can have a positive impact on prevent youth offending and reoffending whether it is used as a diversion from crime or as a way of introducing participants into a wider range of activities, at least in the short term. Interventions can reduce youth violence by developing trust within communities, build respect, self-esteem and inclusivity of participants, distracting from violence and providing opportunities for engaging in education, learning to team work and channelling aggressive energy. (Dr Simon McMahon, 2013)
However, despite the vast quantity of sport based interventions currently active within the UK, there is little evidence on their effectiveness in reducing and preventing crime among young people (Coalter, 2001; Collins and Kay, 2003; Long et al., 2002; Nichols, 1996;).
In a study by (Kelly, 2011), the ways that sports-based interventions promote inclusion within social groups was analysed. The results revealed that all of the programmes had at least achieved some degree of a positive outcome, in terms of helping to prevent reoffending. However, many of the sport-based programmes had poor attendance and retention.
Taking part in sport within intervention settings has physical, social and psychological benefits which can positively impact young people and prevent reoffending. It also helps to aid personal development through sport by fostering self esteem and the development of social skills. This can help young people imagine that they can have a more positive future, therefore reducing the risk of subsequent offending. (Parker et al, 2014)
According to a document published by the Scottish Government in 2011, the following intervention methods were found to be ineffective in tackling the issue of repeat offending in young people: “Short term non residential employment interventions, summer work programmes, diversion from court to job training for young people, arrest for minor offences, increased arrests on drug dealing locations, ‘boot’ camps or ‘scared straight’ programmes (taking young people who offend to adult prisons), ‘shock’ probation, parole, or sentencing, home detention and electronic monitoring vague unstructured rehabilitation programmes.”
Another strategy that has proven ineffective is placing high risk young people in Pupil Referral Units. According to a document produced by the Government, offending levels among young people in pupil referral units fell between 2005 and 2008 although the decline was not statistically significant. (Gavin Berman, 2008)
Using incarceration rather than rehabilitation also has a negative impact on young offenders, especially when the young offender has been involved in petty criminal activity rather than a serious offence. Young offenders who are given custodial sentences are more likely to re-offend than those who are given sentences that focus on rehabilitation. (Giulia Lotti, 2016)
In conclusion, there is no proven way of preventing recidivism of youth offenders that is inherently the most successful. Providing opportunities for young people to engage in positive social activities, which while in attendance they are less likely to be committing criminal offences or anti-social behaviour, is something which is proving successful in many communities. These social interactions help to discourage anti-social behaviours while allowing young people to form new social circles with other young people who may have a positive impact on their behaviour. Also, interventions that deal a ‘short, sharp shock’ are unlikely to have the desired outcome on preventing recidivism in young people.
By far it is best for more than one method of intervention to be involved and that the interventions should be tailored to each individuals needs as what may work in preventing reoffending in one, will not work with another. The intervention methods in place also need to have inter agency co-operation to help prevent young offenders from reoffending.