Justice for children in trouble
|
Justice for children in trouble
|
|
|
NOTES OF MEETING of 11.11.02 Matters Arising There was a discussion as to whether an ISSP could be attached to a community punishment and rehabilitation order. The difficulty is that ISSPs do not have an independent legal status but are rather a particular form of programme which can be harnessed in support of particular orders. The Board funds them on the basis of Yots delivering the programme as dictated. The YJB guidance suggests that ISSPs (when used as a sentence) should be attached to either: a supervision order with an IT requirement (plus a discrete curfew order if required) or a community rehabilitation order with a requirement to comply with the programme (and a curfew requirement if required).
There is no provision in the guidance to use a CPRO for the purposes of an ISSP. However that does not make the order illegal since there is no problem with the courts attaching any conditions to an order if they consider it can be delivered and a PSR proposal to that effect would be reasonable grounds for that belief. The YJB might however ask questions. The community punishment element could presumably be included in the 25 hours contact time.
2. Custody: The population of the juvenile secure estate is staying at the high level reported for the end of July 2002. At the end of September, the equivalent figure was 3,133.
Sex Offender Registration
Tim Bateman led a discussion on the provisions of the Sex Offender Act as they relate to children under 18. (See attached paper)
Some practical implications:
– Making sure that young people do what they are supposed to. This is particularly important given the requirement for initial registration within 3 days of conviction (not sentence). During the registration period, responsible officers should also check whether there is a further obligation to register – eg change of address, holidays abroad or temporary residence. – Knowing local police practice in terms of registration to inform young people of the implications – eg are they likely to receive a home visit. – Negotiating with the police, in individual cases as to whether it is appropriate to disclose the information to third parties.
For further information, see Nacro’s recent briefing on sex offender registration. Proposals for further legislation on this issue are expected shortly.
December Conference and future meetings The conference is very nearly full. Almost certain to be oversubscribed. Meetings for next year provisionally as follows: Tuesday 14 January - Report of UN Committee on Rights of the Child Monday 10 February - National Standards Wednesday 12 March - Effective practice Monday 14 April - Audit of youth justice by Audit commission Tuesday 13 May - Anti social behaviour orders Wednesday 11 June - Enforcement There will be a leaflet confirming the above dates produced for the conference.
Final Warning ASSETFinal warning ASSET has now been produced. It is anticipated that it should be in use as soon as electronic version is available. According to the letter from the Board, this should be for YOIS by end of October and for Careworks, November 12th.
Those projections are likely to optimistic – in fact they are definitely optimistic since YOIS has yet to be updated in, at least some, London YOTs. The Board has asked to be informed by any YOTs unable to use an electronic version by those dates. The LAYJ has heard that the relevant personnel at the Board don’t really understand why you would want to contact them over an issue which is between the YOTs and the providers of the monitoring systems. Fair point really.
Audit of Youth Justice
The Audit Commission has now confirmed that it is to conduct a second major audit of youth justice in conjunction with the National Audit Office. The draft specification suggests that it will be fairly in depth and use Misspent Youth as a baseline. Judy Renshaw is to lead the project. Judy was one of the authors of Misspent Youth and was until recently head of research at the Board. The Commission’s previous report was very critical of the amount of time and money spent on process and form filling. It will be interesting to see whether the massive increases in resources since that time have resulted in more time being spent more effectively. The LAYJ guesses that completion of ASSET may figure in the equation somehow. The audit is due to be conducted between January to March next year with a report published in October 2003. Prevention YISPs and IRTs The Board has announced ten pilots of preventive panels for 8 – 13 year olds. (It is not clear where those pilots are to be located). The initiative was to be called Pre Crime Panels but are now known by the less stigmatising name of Youth inclusion and Support Panels apparently because a number of people had said ‘You’re not serious about calling them that are you?’. It is still not entirely clear, how the panels will link to Identification, Referral and Tracking (IRT) of 5 – 13 year olds.
The Government is to publish a Green Paper early in the new year on prevention which will spell out more clearly what is meant by IRT. A working group has met and is chaired by Paul Boateng of the Treasury.
YIPs The Government has announced that it will continue to fund existing YIPs. It looks like the expansion which the Board was pushing for has not (yet) been agreed. The Home Office press release notes a reduction in arrest rates among young people on YIPs of 30%. It does not however say that the target is a 60% reduction. Nor does it comment on the reference in the Board’s annual review of a 74.6% reduction, albeit over a very short time. Come to think of it, it also doesn’t mention that most of those on YIPs will not have been arrested very frequently – given it is targeted at those at risk rather than YOT clients. If on average, the young people had one previous arrest each, then (on the basis of reoffending rates following a single caution) one would expect that only 20% would come to attention again – a reduction of some 80%. It might be argued therefore that a 30% reduction is actually a 50% rise - if you follow the logic.
Recent publications
1. Race and Criminal Justice The Home Office has published the latest in its regular reports under section 95 of the CJA 1991. It reveals, for instance, that stop and searches in London have fallen by 14% for whites but risen by 6% for black people. (Full report available on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk )
2. Children Act Report 2001 Available from the Department of Health, the above report gives details of outcomes for looked after children and children in need. It shows that nearly 11% of looked after children had been finally warned or convicted during the year ending September 2000 compared with 3.6% in the general population. (Report available on DOH website).
3. HMIP Inspection of Huntercombe YOI This report is particularly interesting given that Huntercombe has been regarded as the ‘flagship’ of YOIs. It concludes that ‘never again should the YJB or prison service put juveniles into such large and unsafe environments’. The induction unit, in particular, comes in for criticism – ‘it would not be considered safe in a residential setting … It should be equally unacceptable in a prison setting’.
4. Evaluation of the National Roll Out of Curfew Orders The Home Office has, perhaps unfortunately, started to publish an increasing number of reports online. This report looks at curfew orders made up to 31st December 2000 – ie before the measure was extended to 10 – 15 year olds. Completion rates are fairly high - 83% - but given that the most common offences which resulted in a tag were theft and handling, this is perhaps not surprising. In cases of breach, no further action was taken in one third of cases and the order allowed to continue with a fine in a further 25%. (Perhaps court time might be better used?) Where orders were revoked, custody was the most frequent outcome.
Most of those subject to orders disliked wearing the tag and some had found it a stigma – though families were generally positive. (Full report available on Home Office website).
Next Meeting
Agenda items or apologies for the next meeting at Coram Family on 14th January to Lis Davies on 020 8345 5557 or Tim Bateman on 020 7840 6436.
Dates of Future Meetings: December – no meeting because of conference Monday 16th December – Nacro / LAYJ Conference Working in the Youth Justice System Tuesday 14th January 03 – 2.30pm Main discussion topic: UN Report on the rights of the child All meetings at The Coram Family Headquarters 49 Mecklenburgh Square, LONDON WC1N 2QA (Can be tricky to find – ring Tim Bateman 020 7840 6436 or Lis Davies 020 8345 5557 for directions) Nearest tubes – Russell Square / Kings Cross / Euston |
|
|
