Make Me A Criminal: Preventing Youth Crime

WWW.IPPR.
ORG
MakeMeaCriminal
Preventingyouthcrime
JuliaMargoandAlexStevens
May2008
©ippr2008
InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch
Challengingideas– Changingpolicy
2 ippr|MakeMeaCriminal:Preventingyouthcrime
Contents
Aboutippr................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Abouttheauthors ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................................................................3
Executivesummary..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................. 11
1.Currentstrategiesforcrimeprevention............................................................................................................................... 14
2.Cooltobecriminal?Impactsofsocialchangeonattitudes,behaviourandperceptions .................................................. 19
3.YouthoffendingintheEuropeancontext........................................................................................................................... 29
4.Riskfactorsforoffending.................................................................................................................................................... 36
5.Thedevelopmentofmoralresponsibility ............................................................................................................................ 41
6.Raisingchildren:theinfluenceoffamilialandsocialcontext............................................................................................. 44
7.Whatworks?Proveneffectiveinterventions ...................................................................................................................... 48
8.Recommendations............................................................................................................................................................... 58
Appendix:Dataanalysisofthe1970cohort .......................................................................................................................... 70
References ............................................................................................................................................................................... 85
Aboutippr
TheInstituteforPublicPolicyResearch(ippr)istheUK’sleadingprogressivethinktank,producing
cutting-edgeresearchandinnovativepolicyideasforajust,democraticandsustainableworld.
Since1988,wehavebeenattheforefrontofprogressivedebateandpolicymakingintheUK.Through
ourindependentresearchandanalysiswedefinenewagendasforchangeandprovidepractical
solutionstochallengesacrossthefullrangeofpublicpolicyissues.
WithofficesinbothLondonandNewcastle,weensureouroutlookisasbroad-basedaspossible,
whileourinternationalandmigrationteamsandclimatechangeprogrammeextendourpartnerships
andinfluencebeyondtheUK,givingusatrulyworld-classreputationforhighqualityresearch.
ippr
30-32SouthamptonStreet,CoventGarden,LondonWC2E7RA
Tel:+44(0)2074706100
info@ippr.org
www.ippr.org
RegisteredCharityNo.800065
ThispaperwasfirstpublishedinMay2008.
©ippr2008
Abouttheauthors
JuliaMargo isanAssociateDirectoratipprandheadoftheDirectors’ResearchTeam.Sheisalso
editorofippr’spoliticaljournalPublicPolicyResearch (PPR),publishedbyBlackwell.Previously,Julia
spentfouryearsattheSundayTimesasacommissioningeditorontheNewsReview andpriortothat
sheworkedasaparliamentaryassistanttoPaddyAshdownMPandSimonHughesMP.Her
publicationsforipprincludePopulationPolitics (2006),Freedom’sOrphans:Raisingyouthina
changingworld(2006), BeyondLiberty:Isthefutureofliberalismprogressive? (2007)andPoliticsfor
aNewGeneration:Theprogressivemoment (PalgraveMacmillan2007,ed,withNickPearce).
AlexStevens isSeniorResearcherattheEuropeanInstituteofSocialServices,UniversityofKent.He
haswrittenreviewsofevidenceonpreventingyouthandviolentcrimefortheEuropeanUnionCrime
PreventionNetworkandhascollaboratedwithvariousagenciesinthefield,includingRainer,on
projectstopreventyouthcrimeandtoreintegrateyoungoffenders.
Acknowledgements
MakemeaCriminal couldnothavebeenwrittenwithoutassistancefrommanypeopleand
organisations.ipprwouldparticularlyliketothankLadyHamlynandtheHelenHamlynTrust,andthe
GatsbyTrust,fortheirfinancialsupport.
Wewouldliketothanktheexternalexpertswhohavecommentedondraftsofthedifferentchapters
and/orprovidedoriginalanalysisforourwork.Thanksparticularlyforthetimegenerouslygivenby
LeonFeinsteinattheInstituteforEducation,DavidBlunkettMP,LadyHamlyn,KateGavronfromthe
YoungFoundation,andLordRamsbotham.ThanksalsotoNickPearce,NeilSherlockfromKPMG,
SusanHitch,andJaniceHillerfromtheBritishPsychologicalSocietyfortheirintellectualsupport.
WewouldalsoliketothankIsabelKesslerandBenGladstoneoftheUniversityofKentfortheir
contributiontothereviewofinternationalevidencewhichhasinformedthisreport.
Wearealsoverygratefulfortheadviceandguidancesuppliedbycolleaguesatippr.Manythanksto
SoniaSodhaforcarryingoutthedataanalysisthatinformedtheresearch.Particularthanksarealso
duetoKateStanley,CareyOppenheimandJoeFarrington-Douglas,andalsotoMattJackson,
GeorginaKyriacou,VictoriaO’ByrneandRichardDarlingtoninourexternalaffairsdepartment.
ThanksarealsoduetoBenjaminLeibowitzandMeghanBenton,whoprovidedresearchsupport.
However,theviewsexpressedinthisreportaresolelythoseoftheauthors.
Executivesummary
Thisreportmakesthecaseforamoretherapeuticandfamily-basedapproachtoyouthoffending,as
opposedtothepresent,morepunitive,system.Theargumentsfortheproposedapproachappear
persuasive–notonlyonhumanitariangrounds,butalsointermsofeconomicsandefficacy.
TheUKsuffersfromtworelatedproblemsthatdefinetheterrainwithinwhichyouthcrimeisdebated.
First,evidenceseemstoshowthatweexperiencehigherandmoresustainedlevelsofyouthcrimeand
anti-socialbehaviourthanculturallysimilarcountries.Second,theUKpublicexperiencesmorefearof
crimeandconcernaboutyouthmisbehaviourthancitizenselsewhere.Inturn,UKcitizensareknown
tofavourmorepunitiveresponsestoyouthcrimethanthoseinSweden,FinlandorGermany,andare
lessforgivingofyouthmisbehaviour.
Butthismaybechanging.Thereisemergingevidencethatsectionsofthepublicdoincreasingly
acceptthatamorewelfare-orientatedapproachtoyouthcrimewouldbefairerandmorelikelyto
succeedthancurrentapproaches–particularlyifpoorparentingweretackled.Aprogressivepolicy
agendaforcrimereductioncanthereforefindmooringsinpublicattitudes,althoughthetaskisa
difficultandcomplexone.
Howdopolicyandattitudesneedtochange?
Despitetheimpressiveprogressinyouthpolicy,suchasthatsetoutintheDepartmentforChildren,
SchoolsandFamilies’Children’sPlan(December2007),therehavebeenmistakesbothintheprevious
legislativeagendaonyouthoffendingandinthediscoursearound,andresponseto,youngpeople
andsocialchange.
Thispaperarguesthat:
Primary-level,universalstrategiesmustimprovethecapacityofcommunities
includingfamilies,localcommunity,schools,earlyyearseducationandyouth
activitiestosocialisenormsofbehaviourandrespectforcommunities.Thisis
particularlyimportantinlightofsocialchangeaffectingtheseinstitutions.
Secondary-level,targetedstrategiesmustimprovethecapacityofsocial
services,healthservicesandspecialistprogrammestobothreachandimprove
thebehaviourofthemost-at-riskgroups,suchasthosecommittinganti-social
behaviour,showingemotionalproblems,orhavingproblemsatschool.
Tertiary-levelreformsmustimprovethecapacityofcriminaljusticesystemto
bothpunishandrehabilitateoffenders.
Attheprimarylevelofprevention,problemsexistatthefamilyandcommunitylevel–partlybecause
socialchangehasunderminedthetimespentbetweenadults(andparents)andyoungpeople,and
becauseengagementincommunitiesis,onthewhole,lessconstructive.Schoolsarealsounableto
adequatelysocialisethemost-at-riskbecausechildrenandyoungpeopletendonlytocomeinto
contactwithwelfaresupportwhenalreadydisplayingseriousriskfactorssuchastruancy.Themost‘at
risk’(inthiscase,excludedpupils)areinadequatelysupported,eventhoughthesearethechildren
andyoungpeoplemostlikelytocommitcrime,breachanorderorendupincourt.
Secondary-levelprogrammesdonotseemtoreachthemost-at-riskoftenenough,andarenotalways
basedontherealevidenceofwhatworksindivertingat-riskyoungpeopleawayfromcrime.Thereis
notenoughjoined-upserviceprovision.
Approachestotacklingyouthoffending
IntheUKwelackasingleagencyresponsibleforearlyintervention,suchastheministriesforyouth
andfamilythatexistinGermanyandAustria,althoughthenewDepartmentforChildren,Schoolsand
Families,workingwiththeMinistryofJustice,mayrectifythis.Specific(secondary)community-based
preventionworkisnearlyexclusivelytargetedonchildrenatrisk,andmostlyincludesleisureactivities,
mentoringoreducationaltrainingsuchasthoseviaSureStart.However,theseareaimedatvery
youngchildrenandfamilies,ratherthanthe5–12agegroup,forwhichpreventionstrategiesare
thoughttobemosteffective.ThisisdifferenttocountriessuchasFinland,SwedenandCanada,
whereprimaryschoolagechildrenareservedbyadditionaluniversalleisure,therapeuticandfamily
interventionsandactivityoffers,andwhereemphasisisonusingthesemethods.
AccordingtotheYouthJusticeBoard,intheUKwespend11timesmoreonlockingupouryoung
peopleaswedoonpreventionprojectstostopthemgettinginvolvedincrimeinthefirstplace.
Cooltobecriminal?Impactsofsocialchange
Contrarytopublicperception,theUKdoesnotexperiencesignificantlyworsecrimethanelsewhere,
butitdoesappearthattheUKsuffersmoreintractableandhigherlevelsofanti-socialbehaviourthan
othercountriesinWesternEurope.
Relationshipswithpeers
Severalsocialtrendshavecombinedtochangethecontextinwhichyoungpeopledeveloptheirsocial
andemotionalskills.Thesehavealteredtheamountoftimechildrenspendwithadultsoutsideschool,
andthekindsofactivitiestheyparticipateinafterschool.Asaresult,wearelesslikelytoseethe
moreaffluent,moreadvantagedyoungpeopleonthestreetsastheyareincreasinglyinvolvedin
extra-curricularactivities,whilethemore-at-riskarespendingmoretimeunsupervisedwiththeirpeers.
Meanwhile,itappearsthattherearechangestoyouthcultureandattitudes,withyoungpeople
becominglesstrustingofauthorityandmoreheterogeneousintheirviewsofsocialissues.
ItappearsthatBritishyoungpeoplearebeinggivenbothincreasingautonomyovercertainareasof
theirlivesatyoungerages(theirsocial,consumerandsexuallives)andnotsomuchmeaningful
responsibility(intermsofhavingfamilies,jobs,andindependentliving).Atthesametime,messages
aboutwhatis‘cool’intermsofbehaviouraresetincreasinglybyadvertisersandpeersratherthan
parents.Manyanalystshavearguedthatchildrenareunabletocopewiththecomplexandadult
environmentthattheynowneedtonavigatefromanever-earlierage,andthatthisisincreasinglevels
ofanxietyandrebelliousnessinyoungergroups.
Publicfear
Adultsocietyhasbegunincreasinglytofearanddemoniseyoungpeople.Studieshaveshownan
increasedmediaandpoliticalfocusonyouthanti-socialbehaviour,andchangestoyouthjustice
policy,suchasloweringtheageofcriminalresponsibilityto10,havebeenperceivedasencouraging
highlevelsofconcernaboutyouthmisbehaviour,andtoencourageBritonstobemorelikelytohold
youngpeopleindependentlyresponsiblefortheirmisbehaviourthanpeopleinothercountries.
Despiteallthis,itisimportantthatwearenotfatalisticaboutsocialchange.Manypolicyleversexist
thatcanrespondtothechangedlandscapeofyouthandredefinetheroleoffamilies,communities
andtheinstitutionsofgovernmentinyoungpeople’slives,asweshowbelow.
Riskfactorsforoffending
Researchshowsunequivocallythatitispossibletoidentifytheinfluencesonchildrenthatmakethem
mostatriskofconductingoffendingbehaviour. Longitudinalstudiesshowthatthemostprolific
offendersstartearly,betweentheagesof10and13,andhavelongercriminalcareersthanother
criminals,lastingonaverage13years.
Thefollowingfactorsemergeasparticularlyimportantinexplainingwhysomeyoungpeople
offend:
• Havingaparentwhoisanoffender,poorrelationswithparentsandnotspendingmuchtimewith
parents
• Disorderinthelocalareaandlackofadultinterventioninyouthactivities
• Lackofextracurricularactivitiesandhavinglittleornothingtodointhelocalarea
• Havingpeersandsiblingswhooffend
• Spendingmoretimewithpeersthanparents
• Truantingorbeingexpelledfromschool.
Inaddition,severalprotectivefactorsemerge–inotherwords,factorsthatreducetheprobability
thatayoungpersonwilloffend:
• Highlevelslocallyofcollectiveefficacy(thewillingnessofadultstoactivelymaintainlocalcivic
norms)
• Engaginginpositivesocialisingactivitiesandhavinglotstodolocally
• Havingagoodrelationshipwithparents
• Havingpositivepeerrelationships
• Enjoyingtheschoolexperienceandgettingalotfromit.
Emotionalandmentalhealthfactorsoftenemergeasbeingstronglylinkedtoanti-socialand
offendingbehaviour.Althoughsocioeconomicfactorsremainabsolutelykeytoyoungpeople’s
behaviour,withthosefromdisadvantagedbackgroundsbeingmuchmorelikelytooffendthanmore
affluentyoungpeople,indicatorsofemotionalwell-beingatage10–locusofcontrol(thedegreeto
whicheventsareperceivedasbeingwithintheircontrol),self-esteem,andsomebehaviouraland
emotionalindicators–haveasignificantrelationshipwithbehaviouraloutcomesatage16.
Itisimportanttorememberthatnotallyoungpeoplewhodisplaytheseriskfactorswillgoonto
becomeseriousoffenders.Weshouldavoidcoercingchildrenandfamiliesintoprogrammesonthe
basisthatweknowwhatisgoodforthem,astheevidenceonriskfactorsandinterventionsisless
certainthanthis.
Raisingchildren:influenceoffamilialandsocialcontext
Cohortanalystsshowsthatyoungpeoplewhohavestrong,supportivefamilyrelationshipsaremore
likelytodevelopgoodsocialandemotionalskills.Researchsuggeststhatthenatureoftheinteraction
betweenparentsandchildismoreimportantthanstructuralfactorssuchasincomeandparental
educationinpredictingthedevelopmentofsocialandemotionalskills.Specificelementsofparenting,
suchasprovidingstabilityandsecurity,andauthoritywithouthostility,areproventobeparticularly
importantinpositivesocialandemotionaldevelopment.
Butparentingisnottheonlyfactorthatmatters.Ananalysisbyipprofthe1970BritishCohortStudy
alsoshowsthatsomeextracurricularactivitiesarepositivelyassociatedwithhigherself-esteemand
bettercapacitytomanagebehaviour.Theseactivitiesmusttakeplaceinagroupsetting,withaclear
hierarchy,clearandwell-defineduniversalaims,andconsistentmeetings.
Activitiesthatcombinetheappropriatelevelofskillsacquisition,hierarchy,interactionwithadult
authorityfiguresandconstructiveactivityinclude:
• Regularsport,dramaorarts-basedactivities
• Activitiesthatinvolveworkingtowardsalong-termgoalandinwhichskillsareacquired
• Cadettrainingthatcombinesbothoftheabove.
Activitiesthatareassociatedwithoffendinginclude:
• Regularunsupervisedsocialisingwithpeersindisadvantaged,high-crimeareas
• Regularsocialisingwithanti-socialyoungpeoplewithoutsupervision.
Inaddition,lowcollectiveefficacyinthelocalcommunityisoneofthemostaccuratepredictorsof
highlevelsofanti-socialbehaviourinEnglandandWales.Thecentralideahereisthatcollective
efficacydoesnotmakeresidentsmorelikelytointerveneinseriouscrimes,ratheritenhancestheir
preponderancetointerveneintheprecursorsofcrime,forexamplebydiscouragingthegatheringof
teenagegangsordrugtaking.Thusinterventionswhichencouragecollectiveefficacyincommunities
arelikelytoimpactpositivelyonyouthanti-socialbehaviour.
Recommendations
ippr’sresearchsuggestsseveralproblemswiththecurrentapproachtopreventingoffending.Oneof
themostimportantisthelevelatwhichweintervene.Thereisnotenoughbeingdoneattheprimary
level(thatis,topreventcrimebeforeitoccurs)totacklethebroadercausesofoffending.Second,
onceanindividualisdisplayingriskfactors,orhascommittedananti-socialact,thenatureofthe
interventionneedstobedirectedatpreventingthatbehaviourfrombeingrepeated,ratherthanon
emptypunishments.Hencetherecommendationsrelatingtothereformofanti-socialbehaviour
legislationfocusondirectingyoungpeopletowardssupport,ratherthanonmerelypunishingthemfor
theirbehaviour,astoooftenhappensatpresent.
Therecommendationsbelowarenecessarilybroadinrangeandscale.Theyaimfirsttotacklethe
culturethatpermitsorevenencouragesyouthoffending,andsecondtotargetat-riskyoungpeople
withtherightinterventionsandprogrammes.
Therecommendationsaredividedintoprimaryandsecondaryformsofprevention.
Primaryprevention
1.Tacklingchildpovertyandin-workpoverty
Theunavoidableconnectionbetweenpovertyandcriminalityremindsusonceagainofthe
importanceoftacklingchildpoverty.Recommendationsonhowthisagendashouldmoveforward,
particularlyintermsoftacklingin-workpoverty,areadvancedinotherworkbyippr(Cookeand
Lawton2007).
2.Bettersupportforfamilies:towardsaworker/carermodel
Strategiestobettersupportfamiliestospendtimewithchildrenandteenagersarekeytoresponding
inaprogressivewaytosocialchange.Toooften,thereisadiscerniblyfatalisticapproachtosocial
change.Thereisasensethatwewillneverreturntothe1950s‘goldenage’ofnuclearfamiliesand
stay-at-home-mothers,andthisistrue.
Butwearecertainlynotheadingtowardsmoralandsocialdecline.Thereareagreatmanyreformsand
policiesthatcanhelpusmoveasasocietytowardsanothergoldenage–thatofa‘worker/carer’
societyinwhichcaringisvaluedasmuchaswork.Thisdoesnotmean,assomehaveclaimed,
replacingparentingwithprofessionalchildcareservicesandlookingtoprogrammesandservicesto
repairthejobofpoorparenting(the‘professionalisingoutofchildhood’).Whatitdoesmeanis
providingtherightbalanceofsupportandservicetofamiliessothattheyinturnmaybalancetheir
workingandcaringresponsibilitiesmoreeffectively.
Therangeofreformstosupportbetterwork-lifebalanceforparentsandfamiliespreviouslyidentified
byippr(seeBennettandCooke2007)shouldbeactedupon.Theseinclude:
• Betterchildcareprovision
• Bettersupportfor,andgreateravailabilityof,flexibleworkingforfamilieswitholderchildren
• Betterparentalleavepackages–particularly,betterpaternityleavetoensurethatfathersareable
toundertakepropercaringrolesinfamilies.
Belowwefocusonareasinwhichnewrecommendationsareneeded.
3.Protectingchildren:banningcorporalpunishment
TheGovernmenthaspreviouslyruledoutmovingfurthertowardsthebanningofphysicalpunishment
byparents.Butitshouldreconsideritspositioninlightoftheevidencepresentedinthereport,as
wellasformoralreasons.Morethan40yearsofresearchshowthathittingchildrenincreasesthe
chancesofaggression,anti-socialbehaviourandcriminalbehaviour.Recentstudieshave
demonstratedbeyonddoubtthecausalrelationshipbetweenphysicalpunishmentandincreased
aggressivebehaviour.
Parentsshouldbebannedfromanyformofphysicalpunishmentofchildren.Thiswouldnotonly
reducecriminalityinthelongterm,butwouldalsosendoutamessageaboutthekindofsocietywe
wanttobe–oneinwhichviolenceandphysicalabusearenottolerated–andsendamessageto
childrenthattheywillbetreatedasweexpectthemtotreatothers,andthatthelawisthereto
protectthemaswellastoenforcenormsofbehaviour.
4.Betterprovisionofactivitiesfor12-to18-year-olds
Extra-curricularactivitiesforallyoungpeopleshouldbeprovidedineverylocalarea,withfunding
sourcesforstructuredextra-curricularactivitiesconsolidatedintoonefund.Moreover,the£80million
thattheMinistryofDefencespendseachyearontheCombinedCadetForces(CCF),mainlyin
independentschools,shouldeitherbedivertedtofundingCCFunitsinschoolsindeprivedareas,or
continuetofundonlythoseCCFunitsinindependentschoolsthatattractacertainamountof
attendance(sayaminimumof50percent)bychildrenatstateschoolsindeprivedareas.
Providersofstructuredextra-curricularactivitiesindeprivedareasshouldbeabletoapplytothis
consolidatedfundinordertoimproveandincreaseprovisionwithintheirlocalarea.Butinorderto
haveanimpactonoutcomes,theseactivitieswouldneedtohavethecharacteristicsthatweknoware
importantinimprovingemotionalandsocialdevelopmentinyoungpeople.Inotherwords,theyneed
tobestructuredandhierarchical,giveopportunitiesforprogression,provideconsistencyandbe
regularlyattended.Activitieswouldthereforeneedtobeaccreditedasfulfillingaminimumnumberof
setcriteria.
5.Supervisedplayareas
TheGovernmentshouldinvestinanewprogrammeofsupervisedplayareasindisadvantaged,urban
areas.Thesewouldbestaffedadventureplayparks,integratedwithstructuredactivity(forexample,in
parksoutsideChildren’sCentresandYouthHubs).ThisisinlinewithplanssetoutintheDCSF’s
Children’sPlan.Itwouldinvolve:
• Rolling-outaPlayRangerprogramme,startingindisadvantagedareas
• IntegratinglandscapedplaysitesintoYouthHubdesignandplanning
• Providingstaffedadventureplaygroundsindisadvantagedareas
• Initiatingaworkforcedevelopmentprogrammefortheplaysector,withrecruitmentfocusedon
localadults
• Offeringsubsidisedaccesstoindoorplayareasfordisadvantagedyoungpeople.
Furtherplansshouldbemadetotackletraffic-safetyissuesinurbanareas,andtomakeareasmore
childfriendly.
6.Supportingcollectiveefficacy
Thereareseveralwaysinwhichchangescouldbemadetoplanningandregulationpolicythatwould
helptosupportarichervarietyofpublicspacesandplaceswherepeoplecanmeet.Amongthemost
importantideasmightbe:
• Carryingoutregularauditsof‘congregationalspaces’ineachneighbourhoodtobeconductedby
localauthorities
• Introducingan‘InvestorinCommunity’badgeforcommercialdevelopers
• Preparingbetterstrategiesforinvolvinglocalpeopleinplanning
• Ensuringthatthedevelopmentanduseofsharedspacesupportstheaboverecommendations
• Introducingtargetstoencouragethedevelopmentoflocalactivitiesthatarecollectiveand
participative.TothisendthereshouldaPublicServiceAgreement(PSA)targettoencourage
collectiveandcommunity-ledculturalactivities–particularlyamongthosefromprioritygroups
andindisadvantagedcommunitiesandthosethatencouragethemixingofdifferentagegroups.
• CharginglocalauthoritieswithdrawingupCommunityPlanspromotingthelong-termwelfareof
theirareas.
Othermeasuresshouldpromotetheactiveengagementofadultsinmaintainingcivicorderintheir
localareas–forexample:
• ‘Facethepublic’sessionsinitiatedbytheGovernment’sRespectActionPlanshouldbeexpanded
tomirrorthemodelofSaferCommunityCouncilsdevelopedinNewZealand.Inthesesessions,
parents,localauthorityrepresentatives,teachersfromlocalschools,representativesofyoung
people’sgroups,localwomen’sgroups,localbusinessandchurchgroupsmeetregularlywiththe
localpolicetodebatecommunityissues.
• Schoolsshouldbeencouragedtosetupparentgroupstomutuallyagreeonrulesforchildren.
Thereareseveralexamplesofinner-cityLondonschoolstakingtheinitiativeinsettingupparent
groups,whichmeetregularlytodiscussandagreeonacceptablebehavioursforstudents.Thereis
currentlyalackofevidenceoftheeffectivenessofsuchschemes,soitwouldbeworthinvesting
inaseriesofpilotschemestotestthevalueoftheseandotherinitiatives.
7.Welfareteamsinprimaryschools
ThesystemofwelfaresupportinEnglishandWelshschoolsisnotfocusedenoughonearly
intervention,andthestatutoryframeworkonlykicksinwhenchildrenbegintomissschool–bywhich
timeitismoredifficulttore-engagechildrenandyoungpeoplewiththeireducation.Thereisnot
enoughcoordinationbetweenschoolsandsocialservicestopickuponproblemswhentheyoccurat
anearlystage.
Localauthoritiesshouldemploy‘welfareteams’comprisedofatleastonechildpsychologist,achild
psychiatrist,afamilyworker,acounsellorandaschoolnursetoundertakeschoolvisits.Theseteams
shouldbebasedwithinschools.AsimilarapproachinAlbertaProvince,Canada,suggeststhatone
teamshouldservicenomorethanthreeschoolsinalocalarea,onarotatingcycle,tomeetwith
childrenandmonitortheirwelfare.Theseteamsshouldbemadeavailabletoallchildren,andshould
meetwitheachchildatleastonceayear.Theyshouldbetaskedwithreferringchildrenandtheir
familiestoappropriatesupportservices,andwouldreplacethecurrentroleoftheschoolwelfare
officer.
Secondaryprevention
8.SureStartPlus:atargetedapproachforat-risk5-12s
Thereisaclearneedforacoordinated,properlytargetedbutnationalserviceforchildrenatriskof
crime–particularlyforthoseofprimaryschoolage–thattacklesthosefactorswithinfamiliesand
communitiesthatcanleadtoyouthcrime.Thispublicserviceshouldbeintroducedinlinewith
previousipprrecommendations–particularlytheideabehind‘SureFutures’,recommendedin
previousipprwork(Edwards2004)–aservicedesignedtoaddresstheneedsofolderchildrenand
teenagers.
SureStartPluswouldbeanextensionoftheschemeofthesamenamecurrentlybeingpilotedwith
teenageparentsandtheirchildren.Itshouldbeacoherentservicethatreachesthosechildrenwhoare
atriskofprolificoffendingfromages5to12:aSureStartPlusprogrammedirectedatkeepingyoung
childrenoutofcrimethatwouldpushforwardthegainsmadeatSureStartfortheage2-5s.
Ultimately,thisshouldbedevelopedandimplementedinabroader,moreinclusivewayinorderto
reachallparents,followingaprimary,notsecondary,approach,althoughthiswilldependonresource
availability.
Althoughprovisionandservicesofferedshouldberesponsivetolocalneed,SureStartPlusshould
offerthefollowingtypesofinterventionthatarealreadyofferedinsomepartsofthecountry,across
thenation:
• Cognitivebehaviouraltherapytoaddressimpulsivenessandotherpersonalitytraitsthatleadto
criminalactivity
• Multisystemictherapyforthosewiththemostcomplexneeds
• Intensiveeducationinterventionsforthosewithpoorliteracyattainment
• Targetedparentingprogrammessuchasfunctionalfamilytherapy.
Touchinghard-to-reachgroups
Theschemeshouldbetargetedgeographicallyatthemostdeprivedareas,butweneedtobeaware
thatthisinitselfwillnotnecessarilyreachthehardest-to-reachgroups.Wethereforesuggestadual
approach:first,geographicaltargeting,second,anelementofindividualentitlementforat-risk
childrentoensurethattheservicereachesthosewhoneeditthemost.Otherwise,children’sabilityto
accesstheinterventionmaywellbelimitedbylackofparentalinterestorotherfactorswhichmakeit
difficultforthepooresttoattend.Onewayinwhichthiscouldbedeliveredisthroughindividual
budget-holding,currentlybeingpilotedin16areas.
9.ReformofASBOlegislation
Anti-socialbehaviourlegislationshouldbeexplicitlyframedasawayofdirectingthemostat-risk
youngpeopleandtheirfamiliestowardsappropriatesupportandservicesinordertodivertyoung
peoplefromcrime:
• Anti-SocialBehaviourOrders(ASBOs)shouldnotbeusedonchildrenyoungerthan14unless
accompaniedbyFamilyorParentingOrders.Instead,FamilyandParentingOrdersshouldbeused
toimprovethefamilycontextinwhichthebehaviouroccurs,ortoensureappropriatecareforthe
childinextremesituations,suchasfostercareoradditionalservicesupportforthefamily.
• IndividualSupportOrdersshouldbeusedwhereappropriate,alongsideFamilyandParenting
Orders,totargetthesocialcontextinwhichoffendingoccurs–inotherwords,todirectchildren
topurposefulactivitiesinthelocalareaandensuretheirattendance.
• Allchildrenandyoungpeopleagedupto18,shouldbeassessedinallcasesasamatterofcourse
beforebeinggivenanASBO.
• ASBOsforolderchildrenunder18shouldbescaledbackfromthecurrent2-to10-yearlimitto
6-24months.
10.Outreachschools
HugevariationexistsinprovisionforpupilsexcludedfrommainstreamschoolsinEnglandandWales,
withamarked‘insider-outsider’culture.Ensuringthatthereisreal,engagingprovisionforthese
groupsshouldbeanessentialcomponentofanimprovedpreventionstrategy.Inafuturepublication,
ipprwillrecommendtheintroductionofCanadian-style‘outreachschools’(SodhaandMargo2008,
forthcoming).InAlbertaProvince,suchschools(whichhavethesamestatusandfollowthesame
curriculumasstateschools,butwithamoreflexibletimetable)operatefromdisusedbuildingsand
shopfrontsinthelocalarea.
IntheUK,subsidisedbylocalauthorities,outreachschoolswouldofferlearningopportunitiesthat
werelessstructuredthanthoseinmainstreamschools,combinedwithon-sitetherapistsandsocial
workers,toyoungpeoplewhohavebeenexcludedfrommainstreamprovision.Theseschoolsshould
offeramixtureofguidedindependentlearningandclass-basedlearning,andshouldbestaffedby
fullyqualifiedteacherswithtrainingandexperienceinworkingwithyoungpeoplewithchallenging
behaviours.Theyshouldofferahigherlevelofpastoralsupportthantraditionalschools.
Decriminalisingchildren
Alongsidethis,wemustcontinuetochallengeandquestionthelanguageusedinmediaandbypublic
figures(includingpoliticians)todescribeyoungpeople,andtorefutetheclaimthatyoungpeopleare
somehowdistinctfrommainstreamsociety.Recognisingtheresponsibilityofadultstotheyounger
generationmaynotbeachallengethatpolicy–beyondinvolvingparentsintreatmentand
punishmentofchildoffenders–cansolvealone.Rather,culturalchangewillbecrucialtoo.
Introduction
InLondonin2007,26teenagerswerekilledinstabbingsandshootings.Inthefirstmonthof2008,
newspapersandbroadcastershadalreadyreportedtwofatalstabbingsandseveralotherknifeattacks
onteenagers,committedbyteenagers,inEngland(BBC2008).Whatisgoingon?
In2005,aquarteroftheyouthpopulation–2.8millionyoungpeople–reportedcommittingan
offence(HomeOffice2006).Thevastmajorityweremaleandfrequentoffenders–youngmenfor
whomthiswasnotafirstoffenceandwillnotbetheirlast.Halfofthe2.8millionreported
committingaseriouscrime.Manywillhavedisplayedcharacteristicsatage10thatcouldhave
enabledparents,teachers,socialworkers,psychologistsorcareworkerstoidentifythemaspotential
offenders.Manycouldhavebeendivertedfromcrimeviaavarietyofinterventionsandprogrammes
thatarefarmorecosteffectivethanajailtermorcriminalrecord.Sofar,however,thishashappened
infewcases.
Theproblem
TheUKsuffersfromtworelatedproblemsthatdefinetheterrainwithinwhichyouthcrimeisdebated.
First,itisclaimedthatwesufferfromhigherandmoresustainedlevelsofyouthcrimeandanti-social
behaviourthanculturallysimilarcountries.Second,thepublicintheUKismorefearfulandconcerned
aboutyouthmisbehaviourthanmembersofthepublicelsewhere.
Publicconcernabouthowyoungpeoplebehaveinvisiblepublicarenas,andthesignalsthatthis
sendsaboutthewidermoralstateofthecommunity,featurestronglyinsurveydataonanti-social
behaviour.Thisconcernisalsoreflectedinresearchonneighbourhoodincivilities(low-levelanti-social
behaviour)andinpolicereassuranceprogrammesintheUK(seeMargoetal 2006,Wood2004,
Bottoms2006,Tuffinetal 2006).Largenumbersofpeopletakeoffence,andsometimesexperience
fear,atthesightofyoungpeople‘hangingaround’.Itsignalstothemalackofsocialorder,orthe
threatofdisorder–evenifinfacttheirpersonalriskofharmisslightornon-existent(Innes2004).
Thisperceptionofanassociationbetweenyoungpeopleandcrimeanddisorderhasbeengrowing
sincetheearly1990s(Margoetal 2006).
Thisnotionofyoungpeoplebeingsomehowdistinctfromtherestofsocietyhasaffectedthedebate
aboutyouthcrimeinseveralways.ItmakesBritishadultsmorelikelytoholdyoungpeople
responsibleformisbehaviourandlesslikelytoholdotheradultsorparentstoaccountthanthose
abroad.Itmakestheadultpublicmorehostileandafraidofyoungpeople.Finally,itleadspoliticians
andpublictoconsiderpunishmentandthelegalsystemasamorevitalcomponentofastrategyto
enforceadultnormsonyoungpeoplethanthoseinsomeothercountrieswhoseethecriminaljustice
systemasalastresortwhendealingwithyoungpeople.Asaresult,weinvestmoreintacklingand
punishingoffendingthanwedoinstrategiestosupporttheearlysocialisingstructuresoffamily,
school,community.
Inreality,youngpeoplearenotdistinct,noraretheyahomogeneousgroup.Theyarepartofa
societyinwhichitistheresponsibilityofadultstoset–bothformallyandinformally–normsof
behaviour.Itisalsotheresponsibilityofadultstomaintainthosenorms–boththroughteaching
youngpeoplecontrolandcaution,andbydiscipliningwithmeasuredauthoritywhentheytransgress
boundaries.Theevidenceonthecentralityofadult-childinteractiontothedevelopmentofmorality
andemotionalandsocialwell-beingisclear,bothfromdetailedanalysisandfrompsychological
research.
Thisisnottosaythatyoungpeoplearemerelytheproductsofadultsociety–theyconstantlymake
andremaketheirliveswithinsocialstructures,andshouldlearntotakeresponsibilityfortheir
behaviour.Butitisnocoincidencethatyouthcrimeratesriseandfallinsimilarpatternstoadultcrime
–apatternmirroredinalmostallEuropeancountriessurveyedin2006(Stevensetal 2006).Northat,
asweshowlaterinTable4.2,thebestpredictorofyouthoffendingisahavingaparentorguardian
whooffends,apoorrelationshipwithparents,orspendinglittlequalitytimewithparents.And
unsurprisingly,whenadultsarelessactivelyengagedwithchildreninthelocalcommunity(when
levelsoflocalcollectiveefficacyarelow)thebehaviourofyoungpeopletendstowardstheanti-social
anddisruptive–asitdoesinschoolswhererespectforteachersisloworwhenteachersinterveneless
ofteninplaygroundbullying(SodhaandMargo2008,forthcoming).
Somewherealongthewaythebeliefthatitisthemoralresponsibilityofadultstosocialisetheyoung
hasbeenlost.Althoughtheroleofparentsisstillemphasised,adultsintheUKemergeasmoreafraid
ofyoungpeople,lesswillingtointerveneintheprecursorsofyouthcrime,andlesswillingorableto
spendtimewithyoungpeople.(Ouryoungpeoplespendlesstimewiththeirparentsthanthose
elsewhereinEurope,trustfeweradultsinthelocalcommunityandhavelesstrustinfiguresofadult
authoritysuchasteachersandthepolice.)Inturn,theUKpublichasfavouredmorepunitive
responsestoyouthcrimethandoSwedish,FinnishorGermancitizens(seeSection3)andisless
forgivingofyouthmisbehaviour.
Changingourapproach
However,thereisrecentresearch(seeSection1)thatsuggeststhatpublicattitudesarefarmore
complexthanhavepreviouslybeenthought,andthattheUKpublicdoessupportamorewelfare-
orientatedapproachtoyouthcrimethanhasbeenassumedinthepast.
Inthisreport,itisarguedthatalthoughtherehasbeenexcellentprogressinmanyareasofyouth
policy(particularlyinlightoftheDepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies’recentChildren’s
Plan[DCSF2007]),therehavebeenmistakesbothinthepreviouslegislativeagendaonyouth
offendingandinthediscourseof,andresponseto,youngpeopleandsocialchange.Thesolutionto
youthoffendingwillbebothholistic–respondingproperlytotheemergingneedsofallyoung
people,particularlyemergingproblemsthathaveresultedfromsocialchangetofamiliesand
communities–andtargetedatthemost-at-risk.Butitwillbebothlesspunitiveandmore
interventionistthanpreviousstrategies.
Previousworktakesapublichealthapproachtothepreventionofyouthcrime(Stevensetal2006).
Thisinvolvesworkatthreelevels:
• Primaryprevention –thisentails‘universal’approachesthataimtopreventthedevelopmentof
criminalbehaviour.
•Atprimarylevel,universalstrategiesmustimprovethecapacityoffamilies,localcommunity,
schools,earlyyearseducationandyouthactivitiestosocialise–embed–normsofbehaviour
andrespectforcommunities(thisiswherecrimepreventionbeginsandismosteffective).This
isparticularlyimportantinlightofsocialchangeaffectingtheseinstitutionsandthefindings
thatadultsintheUKarelesslikelytointerveneintheprecursorsofoffendingthaninother
countries.
• Secondaryprevention –whichincludesapproachesdirectedatindividualswhoareperceived
asbeingatriskofoffending.
•Atsecondarylevel,targetedstrategiesmustimprovethecapacityofsocialservices,health
servicesandspecialistprogrammestobothreachandimprovethebehaviourofthemost-at-
riskgroups,suchasthosecommittinganti-socialbehaviour,showingemotionalproblemsor
havingproblemsatschool.
• Tertiaryprevention –thoseapproachesthatfocusonprioroffenders.
•Tertiary-levelreformsmustimprovethecapacityofcriminaljusticesystemtobothpunishand
rehabilitateoffenders.
Whilepreviousprogrammesandpolicieshaveadoptedaprogressivenarrativeonyouthcrime–for
example,theChildren’sPlan(DCSF2007),theRespectActionPlan(HomeOffice2006b),theEvery
ChildMattersframework(2003)andtheTransitions(ODPM2005)andYouthMatters(DfES2005)
approaches,thesehavenotsuccessfullychangedpublicopinionortheexperienceofthose
committinganti-socialbehaviour.Toooften,infrastructurethathasbeendevelopedwithgood
intentionshasbeentwistedinimplementation.Anti-SocialBehaviourOrders(ASBOs)areagood
exampleofapolicythatwasintroducedwithapositiveaimofreferringyoungpeopleatriskto
appropriatesupportbeforetheyfallintocrime.However,inpracticetheyhavebeenmoreoftenused
asapunishment,orasawayofspeedingupentrytothecriminaljusticesystem(seeSection7).
Similarly,therhetoricoftheGovernment’sRespectdriveto‘tacklebadbehaviourandrespectgood’
(HomeOffice2006b)wastranslatedpoorlyintheprocessofdisseminationviamediaanddiscussion–
fromanoriginalnarrativeofadultresponsibilitytoyoungpeople,tooneofblamingandexcluding
youngpeoplefortheirbehaviour.Thisissueofwhatlanguagetousewhentalkingaboutyouthcrime,
andhowtotacklepublicfear,needsrevisiting.
Inaddition,attheprimarylevelofprevention,problemsexistatboththefamilyandcommunitylevel
–partlybecausesocialchangehasunderminedthequalityandamountoftimespentbetweenadults
(andparents)andyoungpeople,andbecauseengagementincommunitiesisonthewholenotvery
constructive.Meanwhile,schoolsareunabletoadequatelysocialisethemost-at-riskbecausechildren
tendonlytocomeintocontactwithwelfaresupportwhenalreadydisplayingseriousriskfactors,such
astruancy.Themost-at-riskchildren(excludedpupils)areinadequatelysupported,eventhoughthey
arethechildrenmostlikelytocommitcrime,breachanorderorendupincourt(SodhaandMargo
2008,forthcoming).
Oursecondary-levelprogrammesdonotseemtoreachthemost-at-riskoftenenough,andarenot
alwaysbasedontherealevidenceofwhatworksindivertingat-riskyoungpeoplefromcrime.Thereis
notenoughjoined-upserviceprovision.Thisreportreflectson,butdoesnotconsiderindetail,the
tertiarylevel,sincethiswillbeexaminedindetailinthesecondreportinthisseries(Farrington-
Douglas2008,forthcoming).
Ultimately,though,therearelimitstowhatpolicyalonecanachieve:thereisarelationshipbetween
legislationandculture,butitisacomplicatedone.Wecannotexpecttheretobepolicyleversatevery
levelcapableofchangingthewayadultsbehavetowardschildrenandviceversa.Thebestexampleof
thisisintheareaofenabling‘collectiveefficacy’–thepropensityofadultstoactivelymonitorand
engageinyouthbehaviour.Thisemergesasoneofthemostimportantprotectivefactorsin
preventingyouthoffendinginverydisadvantagedareas.Yetenablingcollectiveefficacyisnota
straightforwardjobforpolicy.Rather,weshouldacceptthelimitsoflegislationandfocusontheways
inwhichpolicyandpracticecanprovideasupportiveinfrastructure.
Structureofthereport
ThisreportfirstconsidersthestyleofcrimepreventionpursuedintheUK,andtrendsinyouthcrime,
settingtheseinaninternationalcontext.Itthenexaminesthechangingsocialcontextwithinwhich
youthcrimeoccurs,beforelookingindetailatwhatfactorsarecorrelatedtoyouthcrime,identifying
thekeyriskfactors.Finally,itexaminestheevidenceofwhatworksinpreventingyouthcrime,and
setsoutpolicyrecommendationsbasedonthisanalysis.
Noteaboutthedata
ThisreportincorporatesoriginaldataanalysisusingtheBritishCrimeSurvey(since2001carriedout
bytheHomeOffice)1,the1970BritishCohortStudy(BCS70)(acontinuing,multi-disciplinary
longitudinalstudy,carriedoutbyseveraldifferentbodiesoveritslifetime,ofallthoselivingin
England,ScotlandandWaleswhowereborninoneparticularweekinApril1970;seeAppendixfor
moreinformation)2 theBritishSocialAttitudesSurvey(carriedoutannuallybytheNationalCentrefor
SocialResearch)3 andtheFamilyExpenditureSurvey(carriedoutonanongoingbasisbytheOffice
forNationalStatistics)4.AllthesedatasetswerekindlysuppliedbytheUKDataArchive,andare
CrownCopyright.
1.www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html
2.www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Source.asp?vlnk=1303&More=Y
3.www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Source.asp?vlnk=619&More=Y
4.www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Source.asp?vlnk=1385&More=Y
1.Currentstrategiesforcrimeprevention
IthasbecomeverycommonforcommentatorsandanalyststoportraytheUKyouthjusticesystemas
beingparticularlypunitivecomparedwiththoseofothercountries.
TheHomeOffice’sOffendingCrimeandJusticeSurvey detailsyoungpeople’scontactwiththe
criminaljusticesystem,ratesofself-reportedoffendingandanti-socialbehaviour.Themostrecent
figures(HomeOffice2006)showthat10percentofself-reportedyoungoffendershadbeen
cautionedorgivenafinalwarningbypoliceinthepreviousyear.Fourpercenthadbeenarrested,2
percentweretakentocourt,1percentweregivenacommunitysentenceand1percentwerefined
orgivenacustodialsentence.
Theproportionofoffencesthatresultinacriminaljusticesanctionislow,afactthatiswell
documented.Buttherearemanyreasonsforwhyoffendersarenotreported,detectedordealtwith
viathecriminaljusticesystem(seeHomeOffice2005)–themostobviousbeingthatthebehaviour
wasdealtwithatschoolorhome.Thisisnotsounusual:incountriessuchasSwedenandFinland,
veryfewoffencesresultinsanctionandaremoreoftendealtwithbysocialservicesortheschool
(Stevensetal 2006).
ArangeofevidencesuggeststhattheUKincarceratesmoreyoungpeoplethandomostother
Europeancountries(InternationalCentreforPrisonStudies2006,2007;Farrington-Douglas2008,
forthcoming).Whyisthisso?Itisdueinparttothedifferentdefinitionsofageofcriminal
responsibilityindifferentcountries.InEnglandandWalestheageofcriminalresponsibilityisjust10,
whileinItaly,GermanyandSpainitis14,inDenmark,Finland,NorwayandSweden15,inPortugal
16andBelgiumandLuxembourg18.ThusintheUKahigherproportionoftheyouthpopulationis
beingheldcriminallyresponsiblethanelsewhere.
Inthepastyear,analystsandpractitionersfrommanyquartershavebeguntocriticisetheyoungage
atwhichweholdindividualscriminallyresponsiblefortheirbehaviour(forexample,seethejointletter
byJakobietal toTheTimes,9October2007)andcalledfordifferentresponsestoanti-social
behaviour,theprecursortoyouthoffending.Ourhigherincarcerationratecanalsobetracedtoa
morepunitive,lessholisticapproachtoyouthoffendingthaninsomeothercountries.
Anglo-saxonversusotherEuropeanapproaches
JosineJunger-Tas(2006)hasreviewedthedifferencesbetweenjuvenilejusticesystemsinEurope,and
identifiedthreedistinct‘clusters’.Thefirstisthe‘anglo-saxonorientation’.ThisincludestheUSA,
Canada,Ireland,Englandand,tosomeextent,theNetherlands.Itfocusesonmakingyoungpeople
(andtheirparents)responsiblefortheiracts,onusingpunishmenttodetercrime,andonbalancing
theattentionpaidtotheoffender,thevictimandthecommunity.
Thesecondclusterisformedinthe‘continentaltradition’.Thisfocuseslessonthecriminalisationof
youngpeopleandmoreontheirprotectionandwelfare.IncountriessuchasFranceandGermany,the
ageofcriminalresponsibilitytendstobehigherthaninanglo-saxoncountriesandeducationrather
thanpunishmentisseenasthebestresponsetojuvenileoffenders.Therehavebeenpressuresto
becomemorepunitivetowardsyoungpeopleinbothcountries,butdiversionofyoungoffendersfrom
thecourtsisstillacommonpracticeinGermany,andFrenchinstitutionalpracticehasretainedafocus
oneducationandwelfareindefianceofrecentlegalchanges(DouilletandDeMaillard2007).
ThethirdclusterismadeupoftheNordiccountriesandScotland.Thesecountrieshavetraditionally
dealtwithyoungoffendersthroughwelfareboards.Theseboardstendtousetreatmentand
educationastheimmediateresponse,butarepreparedtohandoutpunishmentsiftheyfitthecrime,
inlinewiththeir‘justdeserts’approach.
Inallthesecountries,therehavebeensignificantpressurestoreducetheemphasisonwelfareandto
dealwithyoungoffendersmoreharshly.AcloserlookatEngland,Wales,ScotlandandSwedencan
demonstratecontrastingresponsestothesepressures.
EnglandandWales5
ManyanalystshavearguedthattheEnglishandWelshjusticesystemhasshiftedfromaprime
concernfortreatmenttooneofpunishmentofyoungoffendersandanti-socialyouth(Pitts2005,Gill
2007).Thiscanbeseenintherisesinimprisonmentofyoungpeopleinaeraofreducingcrime,
despitetheeffortsoftheYouthJusticeBoardtoreserveimprisonmentforonlythemostserious
youngoffenders.However,since2007therehavebeenindicationsthatthisshiftmaybereversing,
witharenewedemphasisonsocialpolicyresponsestoyouthcrimesignifiedbythemovingofthe
RespectUnittotherecentlycreatedDepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamiliesandthe
progressiveapproachadoptedinthatdepartment’sChildren’sPlan.
TheEnglishandWelshapproachhasbeencharacterisedasa‘twin-track’approach(Stevensetal
2006),whichaimstoidentifythoseatriskofcrimeandinterveneearly,andtoprovideintensive
interventionforpersistentyoungoffenders.Thisisconsideredtobecost-effectiveaspersistentyoung
offenderscommitadisproportionateamountofyouthcrime(ibid).Theapproachisbuilton
progressiveprinciples:thatchildoffendersoperatenotautonomously,butwithinaparticularsocial
andfamilycontextwhichmaymakeitmorelikelythattheywillcommitacrime.However,itisnot
clearthatthisapproachfeedsthroughinpractice.Forinstance,thelowageofcriminalresponsibility
meansthat10-year-oldoffendersareconsideredpersonallyresponsiblefortheircrimes.Childrenthis
youngwouldnotbetreatedascriminalsinanyotherEuropeancountry.
ThelastdecadehasseenakeenfocusoncrimereductioninEnglandandWales,ledbythe
establishmentoftheHomeOfficeCrimeReductionProgrammeandlegislativechangeswhichhave
affectedthewayinwhichanti-socialbehaviouristackled.Yet,mostoftheseinitiativeshavebeen
aimedatthosealreadyatriskofoffendingorwhohavealreadyoffended(forexample,anti-social
behaviourlegislation,whichcanplacecurfewsandbansonyoungpeoplewhohavealready
committedanti-socialbehaviour).Othershavebeenbasedonthetertiarylevel(probationorprison-
orientated).Incontrast,therehasbeenalackofemphasisonearlyintervention.Muchprevention
workistargetedatthosealreadyatriskofoffending,forexampleSureStartoffersparenting
programmes,leisureactivitiesandmentoringschemesbutthisisaimedatveryyoungchildrenand
familiesratherthanthe5-12agegroup,theagesatwhichpreventionstrategiesarethoughttobe
mosteffective(Farringtonetal 2007).ThisisquitedifferenttocountriessuchasFinland,Swedenand
Canada,whereprimaryschoolagechildrenareservedbyadditionaluniversalleisure,therapeuticand
familyinterventionsandactivities.
Therehavebeenpreventioninitiatives.ThesecomeundertheremitoftheYouthJusticeBoard.They
includeYouthinclusionandSupportPanels(YISPS)forchildrenaged8–13.Targetedchildrenwhoare
consideredatriskofoffendingreceiveintensivesupportandtherapy,orleisureandsportingactivities.
YouthOffendingTeamshavealsobeenintroducedtoworkintensivelywithyoungoffenders,inorder
toensuretheirneedsaremetandthattheyfulfiltheobligationsoftheirreferralorder,whilealso
accessinganytherapyoractivityprogrammethathasbeendeemedappropriate.Theseeffortsmay
bearsomefruitwiththerelativelysmallnumbersofyoungpeoplewhogothroughthem,buttheydo
nothingtoaddressthebroaderinfluencesonoffending.
Interventioninthelivesofchildrenhasalsocomeintheformofparentingorders,whichhavebeen
describedastheGovernment’s‘naughtystep’forparentswhoarenotdoingenoughtopreventtheir
children’soffending(GelsthorpeandBurney2007).Whileearlyinterventioncanhelpfamiliestolead
lessproblematiclives,andmanyparentsseeksupportfortheirparenting,thereisalackofevidence
thattheshortcoursesthatparentingordersinvolvecanhavelong-termbenefitsforfamilies.Thereis
adangerthattheseordersmaybetargetedonlyatpoor,stressedmothers,potentiallyaddingtothe
stressthathamperstheirparentingandignoringthestructuralinequalitiesthatcontributeto
depression,lowlevelsofparentalsupervisionandotherindicatorsofinadequateparenting.
5.TheofficialpolicyoftheWelshAssemblyonyoungpeopleisdifferenttotheEnglishequivalentin
thatitemphasisestherightslistedinUnitedNationsConventionoftheRightsoftheChild.Thepolicy
explicitlyincludesyoungoffendersashavingtheserights,buttherearetensionsbetweenthisrights-
basedapproachandthecentralisedmanagerialismoftheYouthJusticeBoard,whichcoversbothEngland
andWales(Haines2007).
Scotland
Servicesthatseektopreventyoungpeoplefrombecominginvolvedinoffendingbehaviourplaya
criticalrolewithinScotland’syouthjusticeprovision,whichiscoordinatedbytheJusticeDepartment.
ScotlandshareswithEnglandandWalesatwin-trackapproachofearlyidentificationofpotential
offendersandintensiveinterventionwithoffenders,buttheScottishExecutivehasinpracticegiven
moreattentiontoprimary-levelinterventionsthanhaveEnglandandWales.
Tothisend,theScottishExecutivehasinvestedmorethan£33millionsince2002/03tosupportthe
expansionofintensivecommunity-basedinitiativesthatdealwithoffendingbehaviourandanti-social
attitudesamongyoungpeople(YouthJustice2008).Theserangefrompreventionanddiversionary
projectsforthoseontheperipheryofoffendingthroughtointensivesupportandsupervisionforthe
mostdangerousanddisruptiveyoungpeople.Itiscurrentlypilotingarangeofinterventions,
includingaYouthCourtfeasibilitystudy,asurveyoffast-trackapproachestodealingwithpersistent
criminals,andareviewoftheeffectivenessofAnti-SocialBehaviour,ParentingandCommunity
ServiceOrders(YouthJusticeScotland2008).
Alsoindicativeofthemorewelfare-orientatedapproachinScotlandistheChildren’sHearingssystem.
ThisstructureisuniquetoScotland,andprovidesasystemofcareandjusticeforvulnerableand
troubledchildrenandyoungpeople.ItwasoneoftheradicalchangesinitiatedbytheSocialWork
(Scotland)Act1968,nowincorporatedintheChildren(Scotland)Act1995.In1971,hearingstook
overfromthecourtsmostoftheresponsibilityfordealingwithchildrenandyoungpeopleunder16
whoareinneedofcareorprotectionorwhocommitoffences(YouthJusticeScotland2008).
ThewelfareofthechildistheparamountconcernoftheChildren’sHearingssystem.Decisionsby
panelmembersatahearingarebasedprimarilyontheneedsofthechild.Panelmembersaretrained
volunteerswhoconsiderwhetherthechildrenwhoarereferredareinneedofcompulsorysupervision.
Thesystemisnotaboutpunishment,butabout‘socialeducation’(YouthJusticeScotland2008).
Aroundtwo-thirdsofthosechildrenwhoarereferredtoahearingarereferredongroundsofcareand
protection,andhavebeenoffendedagainst,ratherthanoffendingthemselves(ibid).
Inaddition,diversionaryservicesaredeliveredacrossScotlandtothoseyoungpeopleontheperiphery
ofoffendingbehaviour.Theseservicesaredesignedtopreventthisparticulargroupofyoungpeople
fromdevelopingintomorepersistentand/orseriousoffendersbyfocusingonthefactorsthathave
ledtotheiroffending.Byidentifyingandaddressingtheyoungperson’sspecificneeds,theseservices
canworkwithyoungpeopletochangetheirattitudesandbehaviour.Again,thesearedeliveredeither
directlybylocalauthoritiesorotherpartnerorganisations,suchasthoseinthevoluntarysector(ibid).
Sweden
IncontrastwiththeEnglish/Welshapproach,Swedenfocusesresourcesattheprimarylevel,aimingto
identifyearlyonthoseatriskofcrimeandtointervenetopreventriskfactorsfromemerging.The
approachiscoordinatedbytheSwedishNationalInstituteofPublicHealth.Becauseyoungpeopleare
notconsideredcriminallyresponsibleuntiltheageof15,preventionapproachesfocusmainlyon
families.
Currently,aseriesofquasi-experimentaltrialstudiesregardingthepreventionofyouthcrime,onthe
primaryandsecondarylevel,arebeingundertaken.Averyinterestingexampleistheevaluationof
multi-systemictherapy(MST),comparingitwiththeusualSwedishapproach.MSThasbeenseenas
veryeffectiveinUSevaluationsthathavecomparedittotherelativelypunitiveAmericansystemof
‘out-of-homeplacement’ofyoungoffenders.YoungpeoplewhowentthroughMSTinSweden
showedsimilarreductionsinproblembehaviourstotheirAmericancounterparts,butthese
improvementswerenotsignificantlylargerthanthosewhoreceivedtheusual,relatively
comprehensivepackageofeducationandsocialsupportthatisprovidedforallyoungoffendersin
Sweden(Olssonetal 2008).Functionalfamilytherapy(FFT)hasalsobeenimplementedand
evaluatedbyHansson(2001)inarandomisedcontroltrial,withpositiveresultssofar.Otherongoing
workincludesarandomisedstudyofmultidimensionaltreatmentfostercare(MTFC).Wereturntothe
evidenceontheefficacyoftheseprogrammesinSection7.
TheSwedishNationalInstituteofPublicHealthhasalsoinitiatedapre-school,family-based
interactivepreventionprogrammecalledtheCommunityParentEducationProgram(‘COPE’),based
onCunningham’s(1998)work.ThisdiffersfromEnglishparentingordersinthatitisavailabletoall
parents(soavoidinglabellingandstigmatisingofthosewhoarestruggling).Itisbasedinexisting
communitysettings.Childcareisprovidedtoenableallparentstoattend,andtheteachingstyleis
basedongroupdiscussion.Earlyevaluationshowedveryhighratesofparentsatisfactionandsome
evidenceofreducedproblembehaviourbytheirchildren(Hellström2005).
OtherScandinaviancountriesusesimilarlysupportiveapproaches,includingFinland,whereprimary
preventionincludesexcellentdaycareandchildcareinwhichbehaviouralandsocialskillsarethe
focusoflearning.
Insummary
EnglandandWalesconcentratelesseffortonprimarypreventionthancountriessuchasScotland,
SwedenandFinland,andappeartotakeamorepunitivelinethanthesecountries.Butwhyisthis?
EarlierinthisreportmentionwasmadeoftheuniquelyhighlevelsofpublicfearofcrimeintheUK.
Researchrevealsthatpeopleattachahighimportancetothebehaviourofyouthinpublicspaces,and
thatthismaydriveamorepunitiveapproachtoyouthcrime–or,attheveryleast,couldreduce
politicalspaceforamorewelfare-orientatedapproach.Wegoontoexaminethisbelow.
ThepeculiarcaseoftheUK:understandingpublicattitudes
FearofyoungpeopleandconcernsabouttheirbehaviourhavebeengrowingintheUKsincethe
1990s.TheanalysisbyipproftheBritishCrimeSurveyrevealsthatin2004/05morethan1.5million
Britonshadthoughtaboutmovingawayfromtheirlocalareaduetoyoungpeoplehangingaround,
and1.7millionavoidedgoingoutafterdarkasadirectresult.ItisimportanttonotethatintheUK
‘youngpeoplehangingaround’isconsideredaformofanti-socialbehaviour.Thisviewisunique.Itis
notmatchedbysimilarviewsinSweden,FinlandorotherEuropeancountries,sointhesecountriesa
punitivelegislativeagendaonanti-socialbehaviourhasnotbeendeveloped.
AnalysisofUKopiniondatagivesussomesenseofwhatisdrivingfearofcrimeinthiscountry.It
reveals,asexpected,thatfearofcrimeisinlargepartdrivenbyconcernsaboutthepresenceofyoung
peopleinpublicspaces.Peopletendtoseepersistentgraffitioryoungpeoplehangingaroundina
particularplaceasbeingactuallymorethreateningtolocalsafetythansomemoreseriouscrimes,such
asresidentialburglary(Dixonetal 2006).Thebehaviourofadolescentsappearstosendsignalstothe
publicaboutthemoralstateofsociety,exacerbatingconcernsaboutcrimeanddisorderingeneral
(Pearce2007,Margoetal 2006).Again,thisisaparticularlyBritishproblem.Theanalysisbyippr
(ibid)ofpresscoverageofyouthbehaviourintheUKin2006revealedthatcoveragetobehighly
negativeinnature–supportingthefindingsofpreviousworkinthisarea.
Suchnegativeperceptionsofyoungpeopleandconcernsaboutyouthanti-socialbehaviourhave,of
course,alsoimpactedonpublicattitudestowardsyoungpeopleingeneral.In2004,nearly80per
centofBritons–and99percentofthoseagedover55–thoughtthat‘youngpeopletodayhavetoo
muchfreedomandnotenoughdiscipline’(PageandWallace2004,Pearce2007).Lookingoverseas
showsthistobeaparticularlyBritishconcern:asshownearlier,Britonsarefarmorelikelythanother
Europeanstosaythatyoungpeoplearepredominantlyresponsibleforanti-socialbehaviour,andthey
arealsomorelikelytocite‘lackofdiscipline’astherootcause.
PollsandsurveysalsorecordstrongandlargelyenduringsupportintheUKforthedeathpenalty,
longerprisonsentencesandotherauthoritarianresponsestocrime(Pearce2007).Whilemoreliberal
attitudesprevailamongthebettereducatedandthebetteroff,authoritarianviewstowardscrimeare
widespreadamongthepublic.Britaindoesnotappeartobewitnessingatrendtowardsmore
progressiveviewsoncrimeandpunishmentinthewaythatithasonissuesofsexuality,personal
moralityortheenvironment.Indeed,socialliberalismmayactuallyencouragepunitiveattitudesto
crime,aspeopleinsistthattheremainingsocialrulesestablishingclearlimitstobehaviourshouldbe
strictlyenforced(TylerandBoeckmann1997).
Yetpublicattitudesarenotstraightforwardlyauthoritarian:thefindingsofsocialpsychologistsand
criminologiststellamorecomplexstory.Althoughstudiesrepeatedlyfindthatthedesirefor
retributionispowerfulanduniversal–totheextentthatitmaybeconsideredabasichumaninstinct
–itisnotauniformlyexpressedemotion(Pearce2007,TylerandBoeckmann1997).Itisheldmost
stronglybythosesocialisedfromanearlyageintoauthoritariannorms,thoseonlowincomes(who
tendtoexperiencehigherlevelsofcrimeandvictimisation),theelderly,andthosewhoarepoorly
educated.Anditvariesaccordingtohowpeopleevaluatethemotivesandmoralsofoffenders,and
thetypesofcrimetheycommit.Vengefulnessisfeltmostforcefullyforcrimesthatshatterthe
symbolicmoralorderofagroup–forexample,childabuse–butfarlesssoforcrimesofamaterial
nature,suchasburglary.Theintentionsofthecriminalalsomatter,asdoeshisorherlevelofremorse.
Furthermore,whenpeoplearepresentedwithinformationoncriminalsandtheircrimesby
professionalsinpublicauthority,theirattitudeisconsiderablymoreliberalthanwhentheyreceiveit
fromthemedia.Deliberationonpolicyalternativesandinvolvementincommunitycourtandcase-
conferencingprocessesalsopredictmoreliberalandlesspunitiveattitudes(HoughandPark2002,
Rogers2005).
SurveysandresearchstudiesconductedfortheEsméeFairbairnRethinkingCrimeandPunishment
(RCP)project(Allen2004)foundmuchmorecomplexityandpotentialmalleabilityinpublicattitudes
tocrimethanopinionpollsregister.Twofindingswereofparticularinterest.First,attitudestowards
sentencingdiscriminatedsignificantlyinrespectofdrugusers.Almosteverybody,includingtabloid
readers,takestheviewthatdrugaddictsshouldbetreated,ratherthanpunished.Second,therewas
considerablepublicsupportforcrimepreventionstrategiesfocusedonimprovingparentingand
workingintensivelywithchildrenatrisk.Incontrast,theyfoundthatthepublicarescepticalofthe
rehabilitativeefficacy,ifnotthelegitimacyordesirability,ofprisonsentences.
Otherevidencesupportstheargumentthatpublicperceptionsofcrimeareheavilydeterminedbythe
behaviourofyoungpeopleinpublicspaces,andthemessagesthatthisbehavioursendsabout
embeddingvalues(‘valuesocialisation’)withinfamiliesandthewidercommunity.TomTylerand
RobertBoeckmann’sstudyofattitudestoCalifornia’s‘threestrikes’policy(TylerandBoeckmann
1997)foundthatfearofcrimeasasocialproblempredictedsupportforthepolicyandforageneral
punitiveness,butthatastrongerpredictorwasdepthofconcernoverthelackofmoralsocialisationof
teenagersinthefamily,andthegrowthofgangculture.
Inthefinaltwosectionsofthisreport(sections6and7)weshallrevisittheimplicationsofthis
researchforpolicy–butpublicattitudestocrimeneedtobesetinacontext.So,insections2and3
weshallconsidertrendsinyouthbehaviour,attitudesandoffendingintheUK,inaninternational
context,beforeexaminingriskfactorsforoffendingandthedevelopmentofmoralresponsibility.
2.Cooltobecriminal?Impactsofsocialchangeonattitudes,
behaviourandperceptions
Aswehaveseen,thereisapervadingbeliefthatBritishsocietyisinmoraldecline–thatsocialchange
hasunderminedtheabilityofadultstoteachandcontroltheyoungergeneration,thatyouthculturehas
changed,andthatasaresultyouthoffendingisontherise(whichitisn’t).ResearchbyUNICEF(2007)
claimsthatBritishyouthhavefewerfriendsthantheircounterpartsintherestofthecountriesinthe
OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD),andthattheyfight,smokeanddrink
moreandhavepoorerrelationswiththeirparents.Earlierin2007theInstituteofPsychiatryfoundthat
youthmentalandpsychologicalwell-beingwaspoorerthanforpreviousgenerations(Instituteof
Psychiatry2007).Meanwhile,theYouthJusticeBoardrevealedthatbreachesofASBOsandreferral
ordershadincreasedby88percentinthefouryearsto2006(YouthJusticeBoard2006).
Manyopinionshavebeenofferedastowhyouryouthseemtobe‘indecline’.Toomuchexamstress
(James2000),theinfluenceofthemediaandadvertisinginsettingnormsofbehaviour(Compass
2007),familychange,themigrationofdifferentculturalgroups,andevencomputergamesandthe
hiphop/ghettomusicculture,haveallbeencitedasunderminingyouthbehaviourandthecapacityof
responsibleadultstoinfluenceit(seeMargoetal 2006).Othershavearguedthatpersistent
inequality,alongsiderisingaffluence,hascompoundedtheinjusticesexperiencedbythepoorest
groupsandturnedthemagainstmainstreamsociety(MacDonaldandMarsh1995).
Inthissection,weconsiderthesocialchangethathasaffectedyoungpeople–particularlyintermsof
theirattitudestoauthority,theirbehaviour,andthewayinwhichtheyareperceivedbyadults.
Visibleyouth
Wehavealreadyarguedthatyoungpeopleshouldnotbeviewedasdistinctfromtherestofsociety–
theyareanintrinsicpartofoursocialstructures.Butwecantrackseveraleventsascompoundingthe
senseoffearandanxietyspecificallyaboutyoungpeople.
Interestingly,thegrowthinpublicfearofyoungpeopleandconcernabouttheirbehaviourhas
coincidedwithaperiodinwhichcertaingroupsofyoungpeoplehavebecomemorevisibleonthe
streets.Despitetheincreasingpopularityofindoorleisureactivities,suchascomputergamesand
internetuse,thetendencytospendmoretimeathomehasnotbeenauniformculturalchangeacross
youngergenerations.
Sincethe1980stheleisureactivitiesofteenagershavebecomeincreasinglydiversified,withpoorer
groupsspendinglesstimewithparentsduetoworkpressures,risingdivorceandsingleparenthood.
Thecombinationoflesstimewithparentsplusfewaffordableoreasilyaccessiblealternativesofadult-
ledactivitieshasresultedinsomeofthemost-at-riskgroupsofyoungpeoplebeing‘freer’tosocialise
unsupervisedwithpeersinpublicareasthaninthepast.Figure2.1(nextpage)showsthatchildrenin
England,WalesandScotlandspendmoretimewithpeersthanthoseelsewhere.
AlsoofinterestinFigure2.1arethegenderdifferencesinsocialising.Boysaremuchmorelikelythan
girlstospendtimewithpeersduringtheweek–anditis,ofcourse,boyswhoaremorelikelyto
commitanoffence.
Thereisalsoevidencethatyoungpeopleareincreasinglylikelytobehangingaroundinpublicareas
thaninthepast.In1992,Britonswere1.75timesmorelikelytociteyoungpeoplehangingaroundas
aproblemthantheyweretocomplainaboutnoisyneighbours.By2006theyweremorethanthree
timesmorelikely(Walkeretal 2006).AnalysisbyipproftheBritishCrimeSurveyshowsthatin
2004/05morethan7millionpeopleinEnglandandWalessaidthatyoungpeoplehangingaroundin
publicspaceswasaproblemmoreorlessallthetimeintheirarea.Morethan2millionsaidthishada
significantimpactontheirqualityoflife.
Researchinthisareaisseverelyhamperedbyalackofreliablelongitudinaldata.Butoneindicatorof
rising‘peersocialisation’ofdisadvantagedyoungpeopleincontemporaryBritainistheestimated
Figure2.1:
Boys Girls
Proportionof 70
15-year-olds
spendingtime 59 60
60
withfriendsfour 54
ormoreevenings 51
50 48
aweek,2001/02 45 45
47 46
44
41 41 40
Source:Currieet 40
Proportion (%)
37
34 35 35 34 34
al (2004) 31
33
31 30 31
28 28 29 29
30 27
25 26
20 20 21
20 17 18
16 15
14 13 14
12
10
10 7 8
da
ay
ain
k
ce
d
ly
d
l
y
e
A
ds
ce
en
l
ale
d
ae
m
ar
ga
an
an
ar
in
an
lan
Ita
US
na
lan
lan
rw
lan
ee
lan
an
Sp
iu
nm
ed
Isr
ng
ra
W
rtu
rm
gl
nl
Ca
No
ot
Gr
lg
er
Po
Ire
Fr
Uk
Sw
En
er
Fi
Hu
De
Ge
Po
Be
Sc
itz
th
Sw
Ne
6percentofyoungpeopleagedbetween10and19in2006whobelongedtoagang–risingto12
percentof14-to16-year-olds(Sharpetal 2006).Youngpeoplewhogetonbadlywiththeirparents,
whospendlittleornotimewiththemorwholiveinareaswithhighlevelsoflocaldisorderaremuch
morelikelytobegangmembers–oftencitingthefactthatthereis‘notverymuchornothingtodo’
intheirlocalareaasreasonsforjoiningagang(Margoetal 2006).
Importantly,thesegangsareusuallycentredaroundaparticularlocationwhichthegroupcalled‘its
own’,oftenanopenpublicspace:43percentofmemberssaidtheirgangwascentredonaparkor
recreationgroundand39percentsaiditwascentredonastreetcornerorsquare.Just25percent
claimedthattheirgangwasbasedaroundaparticularpropertyorhome(Sharpetal 2006).Dataon
trendsingangmembershiparehardtocomeby,butthesefiguressuggestthatasignificant
proportionofBritishyoutharespendingthemajorityoftheirtimeinunmediated,unstructured
interactionwithpeers.
Keytopublicperceptionsofthese‘visibleyouth’isthatatatimewhenat-riskyoungpeopleare
spendingmoretimehangingaroundwithfriends,theirmoreadvantaged,bettersocialisedpeersare
increasinglylikelytobeindoorsorparticipatinginadult-ledactivities.Thisisparticularlyevidentinthe
amountofmoneynowbeingspentonleisureactivitiesforyoungpeople.
AsTable2.1shows,thoseintherichestquintilespent£106aweekonyouthrecreationandculture
activitiesin2004/5,comparedwith£19.40forthoseinthepoorestquintile.Thisfigureincluded
£11.90onsports,subscriptionsandleisureclassfeesperweekin2004/05,comparedwith£0.70for
thoseinthepoorestquintile.
Table2.1:Weeklyexpenditureonleisureservicesandvariousothergoods,2004/05
Poorestincomequintile Richestincomequintile
Transport £15.20 £120.90
(ofwhichpublictransport) £3.10 £17.60
Recreationandculture(total) £19.40 £106.00
(ofwhichsportsadmissions, £0.70 £11.90
subscriptionsandleisureclassfees)
(ofwhichcinema,theatre,museumsetc) £0.50 £4.70
(ofwhichbooks,newspapersandmagazines) £2.60 £7.60
(ofwhichpackageholidays) £2.50 £24.40
Note:Figuresaverageofbottomtwoandtoptwodeciles.
Source:AdaptedfromGibbinsandJulian2006
Awealthofotherevidencesupportsthenotionthattherehasbeenalargedivergenceinleisure
experiencebetweenwell-offandpoorchildren,whichbegantomakeitselffeltfromthe1980s
(Margoetal 2006).Mediareportsofpressuredmiddle-classyoungpeoplewhospendtoomuchtime
inextra-curricularactivitiescompoundthecase.
Increasedvisibilityofthoseyoungpeoplewhoarelesssocialisedthroughadultinteraction,andare
thereforelesslikelytoconformtoadultbehaviournorms,mayinpartexplainincreasingpublicfearof
youngpeople.Thesechangeshavealsoledtoperceptionsofabreakdownin‘youthsocialisation’–
particularlyforthemostdisadvantaged,resultingfromthechangingamountoftimespentwith
adults.
Timespentwithadultsandparents
Priorresearchhasshownthattrendsinwork,familylifeandincreasedchangestofamiliesmeanthat
BritishchildrenspendlesstimewiththeirparentsthaninmostcomparableEuropeancountries
(Bradshawetal 2006).RecentanalysisoftheOECD’sProgrammeforInternationalStudent
Assessment(PISA)datademonstratesthisclearly:asFigure2.2shows,in2000just64percentof15-
year-oldsintheUKatewiththeirparentsaroundatableseveraltimesaweek–alowerproportion
thananyothercountryinEuropeapartfromFinland.
Figure2.2:
100
Youngpeople 93
90
whoseparents 90 87 87
89
83 85
eatthemainmeal 80 81 82 82 83
withthemaround 80
74
76
atableseveral 71 72
69
70
timesaweek, 63 64
62
Proportion of young people (%)
2000 60
59
Source:Authors’
analysisofPISA 50
2000data
40
30
20
10
0
Finland
New Zealand
US
Greece
Australia
UK
Canada
Ireland
Hungary
Argentina
Denmark
Japan
Germany
France
Spain
Sweden
Russia
Portugal
Belgium
Hong Kong
Italy
Note:Dataisfor15-year-olds
Thislowlevelofparentalcontactisnotrestrictedtomealtimes,asFigure2.3belowshows.In2000
just62percentof15-year-oldssaidthattheirparentsspendtime‘justtalking’tothemseveraltimes
aweek:farlessthaninItalyorHungary,wherenearly90percentofyoungpeoplespenttimewith
theirparentsinthisway.
Thisfindingresonatesstronglywiththeexperiencesofbothparents.RecentMORIpollshaveshown
thatwhile15percentofparentssaytheirmainconcernis‘notspendingenoughtimewithchildren’,
24percentofchildrensaytheirparentsarenotalwaystherewhentheyneedthem,35percentsay
theirparentsdonotmakethemfeellovedandcaredfor,and44percentsaytheyareunabletotalk
totheirparentsaboutproblems(PageandWallace2004).Whenaskedin2002,49percentof
parentsdidnotknoweitherexactlywheretheirchildrenwere,orwhomtheywerewithorwhat
theyweredoingafterschool,attheweekendsorduringtheholidays(Nestlé2006).
Figure2.3:
Proportionof 100
youngpeople 89
90 86
whoseparents
spendtime‘just 80
78
talking’tothem
69 69
severaltimesa 70
63 63 64
week,2000 59
61 62
58
Source:Authors’ 60
Proportion (%)
51 51 51
analysisofPISA 47
50
2000data 41
40
30
20
10
0
Germany
Sweden
Canada
Australia
Japan
New Zealand
Spain
Ireland
France
UK
Denmark
Portugal
US
Norway
Italy
Finland
Hungary
Note:Dataisfor15-year-olds
Itislikelythatfamilychange–moredivorceandsingleparenthood,aswellasmorewomeninthe
labourmarket–willhavecontributedtothesetrends,assuggestedinpriorresearch(Margoetal
2006).Clearlychildrenfromsingle-parentfamiliesinwhichtheloneparentneedstoworkto
supportthefamilywillfinditmoredifficulttospendtimewiththeirparentthanachildwithtwo
parents,orwithparentswhoworkfewerhours.
InFigures2.1,2.2and2.3,weseethatUKchildrenspendmoretimewithfriendsandlesstime
withparentsthantheirpeerselsewhere.Althoughchildrenandyoungpeopleinsomeother
countriesalsospendlittletimewithparents,theydonotspendalotofunstructuredtimewith
peers.Forexample,althoughchildrenfromcountriessuchasNorwayandFinlandspendalotof
timewithpeersafterschool,andlesstimeeatingamainmealwithparents,theyalsospendthe
highestamountof‘qualitytime’withparents,talkingtothem,outofallthecountries.Anecdotal
evidencealsoindicatesthatyoungpeopleinFinland,DenmarkandNorwayaremuchmorelikely
toengageinsupervisedactivitiesafterschoolthanthoseintheUK(SodhaandMargo2008,
forthcoming).
ThereisalsoevidencethatfearofyoungpeopleintheUKhasmademembersofthepublic–
adultsinthelocalcommunity–lesswillingtointerveneandmonitortheirbehaviourthaninthe
past.Thismatters,becauseawideevidencebaseshowsthatlowcollectiveefficacy(unwillingness
tointerveneintheprecursorsofyouthanti-socialbehaviour)isoneofthemostaccurate
predictorsofhighlevelsofanti-socialbehaviourintheUK–or,rather,thatitisthemost
important‘protective’factorthatcanpreventagainstoffendingemergingwhenotherriskfactors
arepresent.
ThemostdetailedresearchinthisareahasbeencarriedoutintheUnitedStates.InChicago
neighbourhoods,mutualtrustandneighbourlyaltruismwerekeyfactorsinexplaininginter-
neighbourhooddifferencesincrimerates.Communitiescharacterisedbyanonymityandlimited
acquaintance,unsupervisedteenagepeergroupsandlowlevelsofcivicparticipationfacean
increasedriskofcrimeandviolence(Sampsonetal 1997,CoteandHealy2001).Figure2.4reveals
thatintheUKadultsareoftenunwillingtointervenewhenyoungpeoplearebehavinginanoisy,
rudeorthreateningmannerinthecommunity.
Figure2.4:How
Definitely not ask them to stop Probably ask them to stop
likelywouldyou
Probably not ask them to stop Definitely ask them to stop
betointervene 100%
ifyousawtwo 5
orthree 4 15 14
90% 18
teenagers…?
Source:ADT 80% 22
Europe2006 15
21
70% 21
60%
Proportion of people
24
50% 27
24
40%
68
30%
44
20%
36 36
10%
0%
Abusing, harassing or Damaging property or Being loud, rowdy or Spray-painting graffiti
insulting an elderly cars in your street noisy outside your on a building in your
person in your street home street
Base:representativesampleof1,001adults(aged18andover)acrossGreatBritain
Onlyinthecaseofharassmentofanelderlypersonintheirstreetwasthereaclearmajorityof
thosedefinitelywillingtointervene.Ifweputthesequestionsinaninternationalcontext,the
figuresappearevenmoreworrying.In2006BritonswerelesslikelythanmostotherEuropean
countriestointerveneinyouthviolence(ADTEurope2006).Forexample,65percentof
Germans,52percentofSpanishand50percentofItalianswouldbewillingtointerveneifthey
sawagroupof14-year-oldboysvandalisingabusshelter,comparedwithjust34percentof
Britons.
Itisworthexamininginmoredetailpeople’sreasonsfornotintervening.OfthoseBritonswho
wereunwillingtogetinvolved,39percentclaimedtheyfearedbeingphysicallyattackedby
youngpeople,14percentwerescaredoflaterreprisalsand12percentfearedbeingverbally
abused(ADTEurope2006).
Furtherresearchindicatedthatmoreheterogeneouscommunitiesexperiencelowerlevelsof
collectiveefficacy.In2005,peoplefromblackandminorityethnicgroupsweremuchlesslikelyto
saythatpeopleintheircommunitywouldinterveneifachildwasrudetoanadult,orifagroupof
childrenwerespray-paintinggraffitithanthosefromawhitebackground(seeMargoetal 2006).
Whymightthisbe?
Increasedculturalheterogeneitymaymeanthatlocalculturalnormsarelessclearcut.Most
communitiesarenolongerunifiedbythechurch,forexample.Differentfamilies,withvery
differentexpectationsofchildbehaviour,mayliveclosetogether–makingitharderforlocal
communitiestotackleanti-socialbehaviourinaunifiedway.Butitisalsowellknownthatthose
livinginpoorerareastendtoexperiencehigherlevelsoffearandconcernabouttheirsafety
(Dixonetal 2006).Thishighlightsjusthowimportantitistoengageallcommunitiesinlocal
issuesinaholisticandintegratedway–particularlygiventhatyoungergenerationsintheUKare
muchmorelikelytobefromaminorityethnicbackgroundthanoldercohorts.
Youthattitudes
Thereisanoverridingbeliefthatyoungpeopletodayarelessrespectfulofauthoritythanwasthe
caseinthepast.Lastyear,theYouthJusticeBoardfoundthatthenumberofyoungpeopleflouting
referralordershadincreasedby88percentoverthepastfouryears.Previousresearchhasalso
suggestedthatASBOswerebecomingabadgeofhonourforyoungpeople:somethingtobeproudof
ratherthananembarrassment(YouthJusticeBoard2006).However,thisisbynomeansthecasein
allsimilarcountries.
InFinland,youngpeoplehavebeenshowntobeveryeffectivelysocialisedintoadultnormsof
behaviour,andingeneralexpressverynegativeviewsaboutindividualswhocommitcrimeandanti-
socialactivities.Inrecentsurveys,almostallchildrendescribedoffendersas‘losers’whorequirehelp
togetovertheir‘problems’(SodhaandMargo2008,forthcoming).Surveysalsoindicatestrong
supportforauthorityfiguressuchasteachers,thepoliceandlawenforcement(ibid).Sowhatis
happeningintheUK?
TheanalysisbyipproftheYoungPeople’sSocialAttitudesSurveys(whicharecarriedoutbythe
NationalCentreforSocialResearchaspartoftheBritishSocialAttitudesSurvey)showsthatBritish
youtharemorecynicalaboutthepoliceandfiguresofauthorityandlesslikelytotrustadultsinthe
localcommunity(Margoetal 2006).Italsosuggestedthattheremaybedecliningrespectforadult
normsofbehaviour:agreaterproportionofyoungpeoplenowsaythattheywouldkeepextrachange
giventotheminerrorinbothlargerstoresandcornershops,andthisissupportedbyparents’views
oftheirchildren’sbehaviour.
Longitudinalevidencesuggeststhatparentshavebecomemorelikelytoreportproblemswiththeir
teenagechildren–particularlyintermsoflyingandgeneraldisobedience(seeFigure3.4).Butitis
alsoimportanttorememberthatchildrenarenotadults,andthatadultnormsarepreciselythat:
normalbehaviourforadults.Acertainamountof‘problem’behaviourshouldbeexpectedfrom
childrenandyoungpeople.ItisworthremindingourselvesoftheevidencecitedinSection1ofthe
peculiarityoftheUKapproachtoyouthbehaviour,whichconsidersevenhangingaroundwithfriends
tobeanoffence.Whileweshouldexpectyoungpeopletobehavewellinpublic,weshouldalso
expectacertainamountofquestioningofauthority–somethingthatisanaturalpartofthe
developmentalprocess,asSection5explains.
Theextensionofadolescence
Whilethenotionofdecliningrespectforauthorityisdebated,thereissomeconsensusthatthetrend
inmanydevelopedcountrieshasbeentowardsthe‘adultification’ofyouth(Margoetal 2006),and
thatthismayexplainlessdeferencetoadultrules.Thereisnoquestionthatyoungpeopledo
increasinglyexperienceandadoptadultconcernsandbehavioursatyoungerages.Amoreaccurate
termforthisphenomenonmightbethe‘extensionofadolescence’backwardsintochildhood,asmany
ofthebehavioursdeemedtoindicate‘adultification’aremorecloselyconnectedtoteenage/
adolescentbehaviour–forexample,increasedsexualactivity,drugandalcoholuse,spendingmore
timewithpeers,andincreasedconcernsaboutphysicalappearanceandsocialstatus.Manyanalysts
havearguedthatchildrenareunabletocopewiththecomplexandadultenvironmentwhichthey
nowneedtonavigatefromever-earlierages,andthatthisisincreasinglevelsofanxietyand
rebelliousnessinyoungergroups(James2000).
Conversely,themarkersofadulthood–typicallythoughtofasforminglong-termrelationshipsand
perhapshavingchildren,stableemployment,financialindependenceandresponsiblebehaviour–are
increasinglybeingreachedlaterinlife.Althoughthesetrendsarealsotakingplaceinotherpartsof
theworld,theyarehappeningmuchmorequicklyintheUKandUnitedStates(Margoetal 2006).
TheaverageageoffirstsexualintercourseintheUKhadfallenfrom20formenand21forwomenin
the1950sto16bythemid-1990s,sincewhenithasremainedrelativelystable.Theproportionof
youngpeoplewhoaresexuallyactivebeforethelegalageofconsentrosefromlessthan1percentto
25percentoverthesameperiod(Wellingsetal 2001).However,interestingly,hereagainitappears
thatthisisapeculiarlyBritishphenomenon.AsFigure2.5shows,38percentofBritish15-year-olds
hadhadsexin2001/02–afarhigherproportionthaninanycomparableEuropeancountry
(Bradshawetal 2006).ThisisyetanotherindicatorthatBritishteenagersarereachingcertainmarkers
ofadulthoodearlierintheirlivesthaninthepast.
Figure2.5: 45
Proportionof
15-year-oldswho 40 38
havehadsexual
35
intercourse,
2001/03 30 28
28 28
Source:Bradshaw 25 25
26
Proportion (%)
24
etal (2006) 25
22 23
21 22
21
20 18 18 18 19
16
15
15
10
0
Estonia
Poland
Spain
Latvia
Lithuania
Czech Republic
Austria
Hungary
Greece
France
Netherlands
Italy
Slovenia
Belgium
Portugal
Finland
United Kingdom
Germany
Sweden
RisingaffluencehasbeenanimportantdriverofthesetrendsintheUK,buttechnologicalchangehas
alsounderpinnedmanyofthesechanges.Therehasbeenproliferationofmobilephones:earlierin
2006,49percentofchildrenaged8–11and82percentofthoseaged12–15hadtheirownmobile
phone(Ofcom2006).This,incombinationwithincreasedinternetuse,hasmeantthatmanyyoung
peopleareincreasinglyabletocontroltheirownsociallivesatyoungerages,planningtheirleisure
activitiesindependentlyofadultsupervision.
Thereisincreasingevidencethatsimilartrendstowardsmoreadultbehaviourcanbeseeninother
areasoflife.Butratherthanseeingthisassomethingthatistakingplacewithinyouthculture,we
shouldviewthisasaphenomenonemerginginresponsetothewayUKadultsocietysocialisesand
influencesyoungpeople.Punditspointtotheproliferationof‘sextips’forteenagersinyouth
magazines,andhealthandbeautyspasfor10-year-oldgirls,asevidencethatchildrenareincreasingly
exposedto,andexpectedtonavigate,adultconcernsatyoungerstagesintheirdevelopment(Mayo
2005,Schor2004,SchorandHolt2000).
Theimplicationisthatexposuretomessagesfromsay,advertisers,websitesorcertainmagazines
whichmaynothavechildwellbeingastheirexplicitaimcanbeunintentionallydetrimentaltoyouth
behaviourbyindirectlyseemingtopromoteexactlythemisbehavioursthatthepublicaremost
concernedabout–drinking,underagesex,graffiti-ingorevencertainformsofbullyingsuchasso-
called‘happyslapping’.Evenreportingontheseeventsinthewrongtonecansendmixedmessages
toyoungpeople.Encouragingchildrentobehaveinamoreadultfashion–tobuycosmeticsor
productsthatareattachedtocertainlifestyles–canimpactontheirself-esteemandperceptionof
howtheyshouldbethinkingandbehaving.
Muchofthisrelatestothechangingnatureoftherelationshipbetweenchildrenandconsumerism.
Thecrucialdifferencebetweentheinteractionbetweentoday’syoungpeopleandthoseofprevious
generationsisthatitisincreasinglyunmediated.Althoughparentsactasguardianstomany
consumptionpractices,andcontrolmostpurchasesofgoodsandservices(McKendricketal 2000),
youngpeopleincreasinglyactasconsumerswithoutadultguidanceorsupervision(Schor2004,Schor
andHolt2000).Thistrendisencouragedbyadvertisersandchild-orientatedcorporationssuchastoy,
clothingorevencosmeticmanufacturers,alikebutisviewedasunwelcomebymanyparents.In2004,
84percentofparentsstatedthattherewastoomuchmarketingdirectedatchildren(NFPI2004).
Advertisersareaccusedofredefiningageappropriatenessbyreducingtargetagesandcreatingamore
adult-likerelationshipwithchildrenatayoungerage.Oneexampleofthisisthe‘tweening’ofthe6-
to12-year-oldmarket,withproductspreviouslyaimedatteenagersnowalsobeingaimedatyounger
ages,encouragingchildrentocareaboutteenageconcernssuchasdietandbeautyfromayounger
age(Schor2004).MorethanacenturyafterCoca-Cola’sfirstcelebrityspokespersonappearedinan
advertisement,and55yearsafterthefirsttoy(‘MrPotatoHead’)wasadvertisedontelevision(Mayo
2005),publicfascinationwithunscrupulousadvertisinghasledtoaplethoraofundercovermedia
exposésofpotentiallyunethicalpracticesbyadvertisers(ibid).
ContemporaryBritishchildrenseemtobemoreenmeshedinconsumerismthaneventheirUS
counterparts,andmuchmoresothanchildrenelsewhereintheEU.AsFigure2.6shows,66percent
ofBritishchildrensaidthey‘likeclotheswithpopularlabels,’comparedwith52percentofUS
children,and46percentofBritishchildrensaidthe‘brandnameisimportant’comparedwith40per
centofUSchildrenin2005.
Figure2.6. UK US
Children’s
consumer I care a lot about my games 85
involvementin and other stuff 84
theUK,bysocial
class,2005 I like shopping and going to 76
Source:Mayo the shops 78
(2005) I like collecting the latest

72
things that others are
68
collecting
I like clothes with popular 52

labels 66
I wish my parents gave me 47

more money to spend 61
When I buy something the 40

brand name is important to me 46
25
I like watching adverts
36
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Proportion of children agreeing (%)
Note:childrenaged10-12
Thereisemergingevidencethatchildrenarebeginningtoagreewiththisassertionthatthereistoo
muchmarketingaimedatthem,andtheyaredemandingcurbsonthe‘useofinappropriate
advertisingaimedatyoungpeople’(Mayo2005:35).IntherestofEurope,measuresaretakento
protectchildrenfromadvertising–forexample,withbansonadvertisingtounder-12s(which
happensinSweden,forexample).Inaddition,culturaldifferencesinyoungpeople’schoicesofleisure
activitiesseemtoimpactontheextentofconsumerinvolvementanditsimpactonyouthattitudes.
TheevidencesuggeststhatEuropeanchildrenspendmoretimethanUKchildreneitherwiththeir
parentsorinpurposefulextracurricularactivities,andsoarelessexposedbothtonegativepeer
influencesandtoconsumeristinfluencesthanthoseintheUK(Margoetal 2006).
Delayedadulthood
Thecounterpointtothecreepingextensionofadolescenceintochildhoodisitsextensioninto
adulthood,whichhasattractedawealthofacademicresearchandtheory–includingArnette’sideaof
‘emergingadulthood’(Arnette2004).Inthemedia,numerousshorthandtermshavebeenmootedfor
anewgenerationof‘kidults’and‘boomerangkids’whopostponetraditionalmarkersofthetransition
toadulthood.Onaverage,youngpeopleinBritainarenowstayingathomeforlonger,postponing
childbirth,livingaloneforlonger,cohabitingforlonger,havingmorerelationships,marryinglater,
stayingineducationforlonger,andtakinglongerto‘settle’intoacareer.
AlthoughtransitionsarelessextendedthaninmanyotherEuropeancountries(Bynner2005),the
trendsovertimeareindisputable:
• Theaverageageoffirst-timemothersincreasedfrom23.7in1971to27.1in2004.
• Theaverageageoffirstmarriageincreasedfrom25formenand23forwomenin1971to31and
29respectivelyin2003.
• Theproportionofunder-60scohabitingrosefrom11percentformenand13percentfor
womenin1986to24percentand25percentrespectivelyin2004.
• Thenumberofmenandwomenagedbetween25and44livingaloneincreasednearlysix-fold
between1973and2004.
• Thenumberofpeopleparticipatinginhighereducationrosefrom621,000in1970/71to
2,436,000in2003/4.
• In2005,57percentofBritishmenaged20to24(and23percentofthoseaged25to29)were
stilllivingwiththeirparents,comparedwith38percentand11percentrespectivelyofwomen.
(Babbetal 2006,DixonandMargo2006)
ThusitappearsthatBritishyoungpeoplearebeinggivenbothincreasingautonomyovercertainareas
oftheirlivesatyoungerages(specifically,theirsocial,consumerandsexuallives)andlessmeaningful
responsibility(intermsoffamilies,jobs,independentliving).Meanwhile,messagesaboutwhatis
‘cool’intermsofbehaviouraresetincreasinglybyadvertisersandpeersratherthanparents,andas
weassertabove,childrenfinditdifficulttocopewiththecomplexandadultenvironment,whichis
increasingtheirlevelsofanxietyandrebelliousness(James2000).Isthisborneoutintheevidence?
WeconsiderthisquestionindetailinSection5.Inthemeantime,perhapsthemostcompelling
indicatorthatpsychologicaldevelopmenthasnotcaughtupwithsocialchangeistheevidenceof
declineinyoungpeople’semotionalwell-beingthatisdocumentedbynumerousstudies(Margoetal
2006,Bradshawetal 2006,MargoandSodha2007).
Implicationsforpolicy
Insummary,somekeyissuesemergefromtheanalysisabove,whichhaveimplicationsforpolicy.First,
thenatureofinteractionbetweenadultsandyoungpeoplehaschanged.Thishasresultedinlesstime,
andfeweropportunitiesforinteraction,withadultsoutsideschool,andlessqualitytimebetween
parentsandchildren–particularlyamongdisadvantagedgroups.Thismeansthatthereisless
opportunityforyoungpeopletolearnandinternalisesocialnormsandadultexpectations.Inaddition,
changingandlesshomogeneouscommunitynorms,andadiversityoflocalcultures,makeitlessclear
toyoungpeoplehowtheyareexpectedtobehave.Finally,declinesincollectiveefficacymeanthat
adultsarelesslikelytosetclearexpectationsincommunitiesandenforcethemthaninthepast.
Therehasbeenadivergenceofleisureactivities,whichmeansthatcertaingroupsofyoungpeopleare
morevisiblethanothers.Wearelesslikelytoseethemoreaffluent,moreadvantagedyoungpeople
onthestreets,astheyareincreasinglyinvolvedinsupervisedextra-curricularactivities.Meanwhile,
themoreat-riskyoungpeoplearespendingmoretimeunsupervisedwithpeers–andaretherefore
notbenefitingfromthedevelopmentalopportunitiesofferedbytheseactivities.
Youngpeople’sattitudesarebecomingbothmoreliberal(forexample,towardssex)andmore
challengingandcomplex.Thisispartlyduetonewanddifferentculturalinfluencesemergingfrom
media,musicand,insomecases,newlyarrivedmigrantsfromabroad,whichhaveincreasedthe
heterogeneityofyouthculture.Thereisaperceptionthattrendshavemovedtowardsthe
‘adultification’ofyouth:youngpeopleareincreasinglynavigatingmoreadultconcernsatyounger
ages,andtakingmorecontrolovertheirsocial,sexualandconsumerlives,whiletakingless
responsibilityfortheirbehaviourinotherareas.
Importantly,however,socialchangehasnotbeenmatchedbyincreasedpsychologicalmaturity.There
isthereforeapotential‘socialisationgap’,withyoungpeopleperceivedasbeingmoreadultthanthey
reallyareandtakingmoreautonomyovercertainaspectsoftheirlives,andyoungpeoplethemselves
beinglesswillingtoacceptadultnormsthanpreviously–possiblyduetocounter-influencesfromthe
media.
Finally,adultsocietyhasbegunincreasinglytofearanddemoniseyoungpeople.Studieshaveshown
thattheincreasedmediaandpoliticalfocusonyouthanti-socialbehaviourandchangestoyouth
justicepolicy(suchasloweringtheageofcriminalresponsibilityto10)hasputadisproportionate
focusonthebehaviourofchildren.Britonsaremorelikelytoholdyoungpeopleindependently
responsiblefortheirbehaviourthanpeopleinothercountries,farmorelikelythanotherEuropeansto
saythatyoungpeoplearepredominantlyresponsibleforanti-socialbehaviour,andarealsomorelikely
tocite‘lackofdiscipline’astherootcause.Seventy-ninepercentofBritonsthoughtthatthisissue
underpinnedanti-socialbehaviour,comparedwith69percentofSpaniards,62percentofItalians
and58percentofFrenchpeople(ADTEurope2006).
Thissectionhasprovidedanimportantbackgroundforwhatfollows,inSection3,whereweconsider
thetrendsinyouthoffendingintheUKandelsewhereintheworld.Weinvestigatewhether,againsta
backdropofchangingrelationshipsbetweenadultsandyoungpeople,andincreasinglydifferentsocial
andfamilialcontexts,youngpeople’sbehaviourisworsening.
3.YouthoffendingintheEuropeancontext
BeforediscussingtheEuropeancontextforoffending,itisinterestingtoexaminetheEuropean
contextforyoungpeople.TherecentstudybyUNICEF(UNICEF2007)suggestedthatyoung
peopleintheUKhavethelowestlevelofwell-beinginEurope.Britishyoungpeopleexperience
particularlylowlevelsofsubjectivewell-beingandreportespeciallypoorrelationshipswiththeir
peersandparents.Theyalsohaverelativelylowlevelsofmaterialwell-being,withahigh
proportionlivinginpoverty.Itmaybenocoincidencethattheyalsoreporthighlevelsofrisk
behaviours,includingfighting,drinking,drug-takingandteenagepregnancy.
Anotheraspectofthecontextinwhichyoungpeopleliveisthelevelofsupportprovidedtofamilies
bytheGovernment.TheOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopmenthascollecteddata
from2003(seeFigure3.1below)whichshowsthattheUKspendslessthantheOECDaverageon
familyservicessuchaschildcareandearlyeducationfacilities,assistanceforyoungpeople,residential
facilities,andcentre-basedfacilitiesandhomehelpservicesforfamiliesinneed.
Figure3.1:
Spendingon 2.5
familyservices,as
percentageof
GDP,compared
2.0
withOECD
average,2003
Source:OECD
SocialExpenditure 1.5
% GDP
Database
1.0
0.5
0.0
e
ng y
Sw ark
Po urg
Fi ar y
Fr a nd
er um
Ice d en
ia
Augd o y
ite Ge tug s
Un R Ita n
Lu Rep tria
bo c
S t ic
a k Au te s
str m
th lgi d
ite epu ly
Sw Gre and
Ca lan d
d rm al
Ire and
Ze nd
da
No nc
Ne ze ece
Hu rwa
n n
Un Por nd
m li
i
Ne Be lan
al
d bl
ec Spa
xe ub
Ki a
nm
na
w r la
a
a
s
la
l
e
al
n
De
i t
h
ov
Cz
Sl
ComparablestatisticsforEuropeancountriesareoftenhardtocompile,andthisisparticularlytruefor
youthoffending.Countriestendtovaryintheirdefinitionofanoffence,ageofcriminalresponsibility
andhowfiguresarecollected.Thereisdataavailablefrompolicerecordsandvictimisationsurveys.As
thepeakageforoffendingisinthemid-to-lateteenageyears,wecanusetheseoverallcrimeratesas
aroughindicatoroflevelsofyouthcrime.
Trendsinyouthoffending
TheBritishCrimeSurvey(BCS)suggeststhat,fromitspeakin1995tothemostrecentdatafor
2007,thenumberofcrimesinEnglandandWaleshasfallenby46percent,withvehiclecrime
andburglaryfallingbyoverahalfandviolentcrimefallingby47percentduringthatperiod.
CrimeisnowatitslowestrecordedlevelsincetheBCSbeganin1981.However,onlyaminorityof
thepublicbelievesthatthecriminaljusticesystemiseffectiveinreducingcrime,andthe
proportionofpeoplewhobelievethatitiseffectiveindealingwithyoungpeopleaccusedofa
crimehasfallento24percent(HomeOffice2008).
Inrecentyears,therehasbeenapatternofdivergenceinEuropeancountriesbetweenofficially
recordedcrimeandcrimesreportedbyvictimstotheInternationalCriminalVictimisationSurvey.
Thisisespeciallytrueforviolentcrimes.Policerecordsshowanincreaseinreportingofviolent
crime(Aebietal 2006).However,datafromatelephonesurveyofvictimsinEuropeancountries
suggestthatviolentcrimeroseinthelate1990s,beforefallinginthefirsthalfofthisdecade
(Stevensetal2006,vanDijketal2005).Propertyoffenceshavefalleninpolicerecordsandfallen
fasterinvictimisationsurveysinEurope.Thissuggeststhattheapparentriseinviolentcrimein
the1990smayhavesensitisedpeopletocrimetosuchanextentthattheybecamemorelikelyto
reportittothepolice,evenasithasbeenfalling.Swedishresearchalsoshowshowpolitical
partiesinopposition(especiallyright-wingparties)useyouthcrimeasastickwithwhichtobeat
theincumbentparty,againincreasingpublicconcernaboutyouthcrime(Estrada2005).
InmanyEuropeancountriesithasbeensuggestedthatarelativelysmallgroupofyoungpeople
areresponsibleforthemajorityofcrimes.IntheUK,theOffendingCrimeandJusticesurvey
suggeststhat10percentofoffendersareresponsibleforhalfofallcrimescommitted(Stevens
andGladstone2002,HomeOffice2006).Preventingtheemergenceofthisgroupofpersistent
youngoffenderscouldresultinlargereductionsinoverallcrimerates.
OffendingintheUK
LookinginmoredetailatwhooffendsintheUKisrevealing.Anestimated2.8millionyoung
peopleoffendedin2005(HomeOffice2005).Thisrepresentsaquarterofallyoungpeopleaged
10to25.Amongthequarterofyoungpeoplewhohadcommittedacoreoffenceinthelast12
months,half(51percent)reportedcommittingaseriousoffence(assaultwithinjury,theftfroma
person,theftofavehicle,burglary,sellingclass-Adrugsorrobbery).
Ifwetotalupoffendingforalloffencetypes,thisshowsthatmanyyoungpeoplewhohad
committedanoffencehadoffendedononlyafewoccasions.Almostathird(31percent)of
youngpeoplewhoreportedoffendingsaidtheyhadonlycommittedoneoffenceinthepast12
months.Afurther28percenthadcommittedtwoorthreeoffences.However,almostathird(31
percent)ofoffenders(equatingto7percentofall10-to25-year-olds)reportedcommittingsix
ormoreoffencesinthepast12months,andwereclassifiedas‘frequentoffenders’.
Threepercentofyoungpeoplehadcommittedatleastonebutfewerthansixseriousoffences,
andhadoffendedsixormoretimes,includinglessseriousoffences.Onepercenthadfrequently
committedseriousoffences(sixormoretimesinthelast12months)andwereclassifiedas
‘frequentseriousoffenders’.Ninepercenthadcommittedaseriousoffencebuthadoffended
fewerthansixtimes,while2percenthadoffendedmorethansixtimesbuthadonlycommitted
lessseriousoffences.Afurther10percenthadonlycommittedlessseriousoffencesand
committedthesefewerthansixtimes.Thevastmajority(75percent)hadnotoffendedatall.
In2005,malesweremorelikelytohaveoffendedinthepast12monthsthanfemales.Nearlyone
third(30percent)ofmaleshadcommittedatleastoneofthecoreoffences,comparedwithone
fifth(21percent)offemales.
Formales,theprevalenceofoffendingpeakedamong16-to19-year-olds.Fortypercentof
malesinthisagegrouphadreportedcommittingoneormoreofthecoreoffences(significantly
higherthanamongmalesagedunder14andthoseaged20ormore).Levelsofseriousoffending
peakedamongmalesagedfrom18to19(22percent),whilelevelsoffrequentoffendingwere
morespreadoutacrossthedifferentagegroups.Femaleoffendingpeakedearlierthanmale
offending,atage14-15.Onethird(33percent)offemalesinthisagegrouphadoffended–a
significantlyhigherproportionthaninotheragegroups.
Asmentionedabove,10-to25-year-oldswhohadcommittedsixormoreoffences(7percentof
thepopulationand30percentofoffendersinthisagegroup)wereresponsibleforthevast
majorityofalloffencesmeasuredbythesurvey.Justovereightin10offencesmeasured(83per
cent)werecommittedbythisgroup.Frequentoffendersalsoaccountedfor82percentofall
seriousoffencesmeasured(HomeOffice2005).Thisisclearlythegroupweshouldbetargeting.
AlthoughtheanalysisabovesuggeststhattheUKdoesnotexperiencesignificantlyworsecrime
thanelsewhere,itisoftenarguedthattheUKsuffersmoreintractableandhigherlevelsofanti-
socialbehaviour–thekeyprecursortocrime,andanissuethathasimportantinfluencesonpublic
attitudestoandfearofcrime–thanothercountriesinWesternEurope.
Differentdefinitionsofanti-socialbehaviour
IntheUK,anti-socialbehaviourisdefinedas:‘behaviourwhichcausesorislikelytocause
harassment,alarmordistresstooneormorepeoplewhoarenotinthesamehouseholdasthe
perpetrator’(HomeOffice2003).However,thisdefinitionraisesanumberofdifficulties–
primarilythatpeoplehaveverydifferentexpectationsandlevelsoftolerance.Whatseemslike
anti-socialbehaviourtoonepersonmightbeseenasnormalbehaviourbyanother(Buddetal
2005).
TheOffendingCrimeandJusticeSurvey (HomeOffice2006)namesfourkeyanti-social
behaviours:
• Beingnoisyorrudeinapublicplace,causingsomeonetocomplain
• Behavinginawaythatresultedinaneighbourcomplaining
• Graffitiinapublicplace
• Threateningorbeingrudetosomeonebecauseoftheirraceorreligion.
Inopinionsurveys,oneofthekeyreasonsforcomplaintsaboutyouthbehaviourintheUKin
2005/6was‘youngpeoplehangingaround’.
InSwedenandFinland,comparabledefinitionsofanti-socialbehaviourtothoseusedintheUK
aredifficulttofind.StatisticsontheprevalenceofthesebehavioursexistintheUK,butarenot
collectedinothercountries.So,tobenchmarkthebehaviourofUKyouthwiththoseinother
countries,differentbehaviourswereusedinthewritingofthisreport.
Youthbehaviour:trendsandperceptions
Below,weconsiderseveralindicatorsofyouthbehaviour:
• Relationshipswithpeers
• Incidentsoffighting
• Useofdrugsoralcoholandsmoking.
Wherepossible,wealsoexaminetrendsinanti-socialbehaviourasdefinedbytheHomeOfficein
theUK.
BenchmarkingBritishchildren’sexperiencesofrelationshipswiththeirpeersagainsttheir
counterpartsinotherEuropeancountriesgivesconsiderablecauseforconcern.InEnglandin
2001/02,just45percentofboysand56percentofgirlsaged11saidthattheirpeerswere‘kind
andhelpful’–markedlyfewerthaninanyothercountry–althoughIrelandandScotlandfared
better,asFigure3.2(below)shows.
AsFigure3.3(below)shows,youngpeopleinBritainsurveyedin2001/2weremorelikelythan
themajorityoftheircontinentalcounterpartstohavebeeninvolvedinaphysicalfightinthe
previous12months.Forty-fourpercentof15-year-oldsinBritainhadbeeninvolvedinafight,
comparedwithjust25percentofthoseinFinland,28percentinGermanyand35percentin
Sweden(Bradshawetal 2006).
Intermsofalcoholandsubstancemisuse,in2003,38percentofBritish15-year-oldshadtried
cannabis,comparedwith27percentinGermanyandjust7percentinSweden.Theinternational
Figure3.2. 100
Proportionof11- Girls 88
year-oldssaying 90
84
86
83
85
83 8383
Boys 81 81 82
theirpeersare 80
78 77 76
78
‘kindandhelpful’, 72
70
73
68 68 68
2001/02 70 65 65 66 66 65
62 62
6061
Source:Currieet 60 56
59
56
59
Proportion (%)
53
al (2004)
50 45
40
30
20
10
0
A
ain
d
ly
ay
en
d
ce
da
l
k
d
d
ce
y
ia
US
ga
d
lan
lan
ar
lan
lan
an
Ita
an
bli
lan
rw
an
ed
na
ee
Sp
rtu
nm
rm
g
Fin
ot
Ire
hu
pu
No
Fr
Gr
Sw
Ca
er
En
Po
De
Ge
Sc
Lit
itz
Re
Sw
h
ec
Cz
Country
Figure3.3.
60
Proportionof
15-year-oldswho 49
48 48 48
havebeen 50
44 44 45
involvedina 40 40 41 42
39 39 40
physicalfightin 40 36
38 38 38
35 35
theprevious12
Proportion (%)
months,2001/02 30 28
25
Source:Bradshaw
etal (2006) 20
10
0
Italy
Poland
Sweden
Finland
Austria
Portugal
France
Hungary
Germany
Latvia
Lithuania
Spain
Estonia
Malta
Denmark
Netherlands
Ireland
Greece
Slovenia
Belgium
United Kingdom
Czech Republic
Country
pictureforteenagedrunkennessissimilar:asFigure3.4shows,British15-year-oldsweremore
likelythanthoseinanyotherEuropeancountry,exceptforIrelandandDenmark,tohavebeen
drunk20timesormoreintheirlives(Bradshawetal 2006).
ThisnotionofyoungpeopleintheUKbeing‘worsebehavedthanothers’–popularinmedia
reportage–issupportedbyarangeofotherdatashowingthatBritonsbecomesexuallyactiveat
earlierages,andaremorelikelytojoingangs,thantheirpeerselsewhere(Margoetal 2006).This
isapicturethatthepresshasbeenquicktopaint,buttherehavebeenmanycriticismsofthe
evidencefromthoseclaimingitisflawedorunfairlynegative.Somedatasourcesfromwithinthe
UKseemtosuggestthat‘conductdisorders’arebecomingmoreofaproblem.Figure3.5suggests
thatparentsbelievethatconductproblemsincreasedintheUKbetween1974and1999.
Butthisevidenceissomeyearsold,datingbackto1999.Thereisadditionalevidencethat
perceptionsoflevelsofanti-socialbehaviour–basedonthefourtypesofbehaviourusedbythe
Figure3.4.
40
Proportionof
36
15-year-oldswho
35
havebeendrunk
20timesormore, 30
30
2003 26 26
27
Source:Bradshaw 25
etal (2006)
Proportion (%)
21 21
20 18
17
15
15 14 14
12
11
10
10
7
6
5
5 4
3 3 3
2
0
France
Cyprus
Greece
Portugal
Lithuania
Estonia
Belgium
Finland
Poland
United Kingdom
Italy
Hungary
Malta
Germany
Netherlands
Denmark
Slovenia
Ireland
Sweden
Austria
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Latvia
Figure3.5.
35
Conductproblems
atage16 1974
reportedby 30 1986
parentsinthe
1999
UK,1974,1986
Proportion of children whose parents reported problems (%)
and1999 25
Source:Collishaw
etal (2004a)
20
15
10
0
Bullying Stealing Lying Disobedience
Type of problem
HomeOffice–increasedintheUKbetween1996and2002/03,justasoverallcrimerateswere
falling.Duringthisperiodtherewasa44percentriseintheproportionofpeopleperceivingvery
orfairlybigproblemswithvandalismandgraffitiintheirlocalarea,anda42percentrisein
complaintsabout‘teenagershangingaround’,whiletheoveralllevelofcrimeactuallyfellby36
percent(Nicholasetal 2005,Wood2005).Thereareworryingsignsthatperceptionsofrates
anti-socialbehaviourareincreasingoncemore:2006showedincreasesinallmeasures,as
indicatedbyFigure3.6.
Publicperceptionsoftrendsinbehaviourarenotsupportedbythehardevidence:theHome
Officereportsthatin2005(themostrecentyearforwhichstatisticsareavailable)justundera
quarter(23percent)ofyoungpeopleagedfrom10to25hadcommittedatleastoneanti-social
Figure3.6. Perceptionof:
Percentage Vandalism and Teenagers Drug use or Drunk or rowdy Noisy
perceivingveryor graffiti hanging around dealing behaviour neighbours
40
fairlybig
problemswith
anti-social 35
behaviour,1992
to2005/06
Source:ippr 30
analysisofBritish
CrimeSurvey
25
(variousyears)
Percentage
20
15
10
0
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06
actofthefiveshowninFigure3.6(HomeOffice2005)–equivalentto2.6millionyoungpeople.
Indeed,therehasbeennosignificantdifferenceinlevelsofanti-socialbehavioursince2003,when
recordsbegan.
Insummary,despitetheclaimstothecontrary,therehavesimplynotbeenlargerisesinyouthanti-
socialbehaviourintheUK.Thechiefproblemappearstobeacombinationofcertainbehaviours,such
asdrinkinganddrugtaking,andveryhighlevelsofpublicfear.Thisisnodoubtcompoundedbya
deepdistrustofgovernmentcrimefigures(Dixonetal 2006).Butisworsenedtoobythefactthatwe
intheUKconsidermisbehaviourbyyoungpeople,suchasdrinking,smokingandhangingaroundon
thestreetstobeaseriousproblem–andinmanywaysitis,sinceunsupervisedcontactwithpeers
cancreateproblemsforsomegroupsofyoungpeople–whileinothercountries,whichexperience
similarlevelsofthesebehaviours,thepublicandgovernmentsaremuchlessconcerned.
Clearly,understandingwhatdrivespublicfearisvital.ConcernsaboutdrinkingandsmokingintheUK
mayrelatetotheculturearoundtheseactshere–agroupofyoungpeopledrinkingonaresidential
streetandbecomingaggressivewouldbeofmoreconcernthanayoungpersondrinkingoverdinner
withhisorherparents,asweknowtheyaremorelikelytodoinFranceorItaly.Butfiguresonthisare
hardtocomeby.Theframeinwhichthesediscussionsaretakingplacealsomatters:asdetailedatthe
startofthispaper,perceptionsofyoungpeoplehavebeencloudedbyintensereportingofafewvery
seriousinstancesofyouthstabbingsandguncrime.Therecanbenoquestionthatknowledgeofsuch
crimes,perpetratedbyaverysmallgroupofyoungpeople,affecthowthepublicperceivesyoung
peopleingeneral.
TheevidenceprovidedinSection2suggeststhattherehasbeenabreakdowninrelationsbetween
youthandadultsintheUK,andthatpublicfearisinlargepartdrivenbytheincreasingvisibilityof
certaingroupsofunsupervisedyoungpeopleandotherfactsofsocialchange.Respondingtosocial
changewillthereforebeofcentralimportancetoanewapproachthattacklestheculturewithinwhich
offendingbehaviouroccursandisperceived.ThefactthatBritishyouthdonotsharethesamedisdain
foroffendingandanti-socialbehaviourasthoseincountriessuchasFinland,andarelesslikelyto
respectthepoliceandadultauthorityfigures,doessuggestthatnewstrategiesareneededifweare
toembedadultnormsofbehaviourandattitudes.
Theresponsetosocialchangeandyouthbehaviourmustbebig-picture,aimedattheprimarylevelof
prevention.Buttheaimshouldnotbetoreversesocialchange–indeed,manyofthemostimportant
andpositivedevelopmentsinsocietyresultfromtheverysameshifts.Butwedoneedtorethinkthe
infrastructuresupportingfamilies,communities,schoolsandindividualsifwearetoensurethatthere
arefewernegativeconsequencesforyoungpeople’sdevelopment.
Weshouldalsonotbefatalisticaboutsomeaspectsofsocialchange.Weworry,rightly,thatparents
arespendinglesstimewithchildrenthaninthepast(or,specifically,inthe‘goldenage’ofthe
1950s),butthisisnotaninevitabledecline.Manypolicyleversexistthatcanensurethatparentsare
moreabletobalanceworkwithcaringduties–forexample,flexibleworkingandbetteraccessto
childcare.(Theseoptionshavebeenhighlightedinpreviousipprreports,suchasHughesandCook
2007,Margoetal 2006,DixonandMargo2006,PearceandPaxton2005,andStanleyed2005.)
However,itisalsoworthremindingourselvesthatwhilemanyyoungpeopleengageinanti-social
behaviour,itremainsaminoritywhoactuallycommitanoffence,andafarsmallerminoritywhoare
frequentorseriousoffenders(HomeOffice2005).Theseat-riskyoungpeoplewillrequirean
additionalsecondary-levelresponse,butthefirststepistoidentifywhotheyare.Thisisthequestion
thatweaddressinthefollowingsection.
4.Riskfactorsforoffending
Researchshowsunequivocallythatitispossibletoidentifythefactorsthatpredisposeyoungpeople
tooffend.ArecentlypublishedlongitudinalstudybyFarringtonetal (2006)showedthatthemost
prolificoffendersstartearly,betweentheagesof10and13,andhavelongercriminalcareersthan
othercriminals,lastingonaverage13years.Hence,theauthorsargue,preventionresourcesshouldbe
aimedatthosewhoaremostatriskofprolificoffendingamongpre-schoolandprimaryagechildren.
Instantly,thissuggestsproblemswiththeUKapproach–alreadyidentifiedhereaslackingproper
provisionforprimarypreventionforchildrenaged5-12.Buttheevidencerequiresreview.Todothis,
ipprhasdrawnfrompreviousstudiesandundertakenitsownoriginalanalysisusingtheBritishCohort
Studies.
Table4.1:Factorsthatimpactonlikelihoodofoffending
Variable Category Offender(%) Frequentoffender*(%) Seriousoffender**(%)
Sex Female 24 5 13
Male 30 8 14
Age 10to11 16 3 8
12to13 27 5 14
14to15 35 10 18
Notes:*Anoffenderwhohascommittedsixormoreoffencesinthelast12months
**Seriousoffencesinclude:theftofavehicle,burglary,robbery,theftfromaperson,assaultresultingininjury,selling
class-Adrugs
Table4.1presentsregressionanalysisofthefactorsthatimpactonlikelihoodofoffending,basedon
HomeOfficedataanalysis.Itisimportanttonotethatthekeyfactorassociatedwithoffendingis
socioeconomicbackground.Thisdoesnotfeatureinthetable,whichcontrolsforsocioeconomic
factors,buthasbeenprovenincountlesspreviousreportsandstudiesincludingMargoetal (2006),
whichshowsthatcomingfromadisadvantagedareatrumpsmostotherfactors.InTable4.2,
highlightedinblackarethefactorsmostassociatedwithoffending.
Table4.2:Offendingcommittedinthelast12monthsby10-to15-year-olds,bysociodemographicand
lifestylevariables
Variable Category Offender(%) Frequentoffender(%) Seriousoffender(%)
Lifestyleandbehaviour
Beingdrunkoncea No 24 5 12
monthormorein Yes 72 32 43
lastyear
Takendrugsinlastyear No 23 4 11
Yes 70 36 49
Victimofapersonal No 18 3 7
crime Yes 47 13 28
Attitudetocertain Lesslikelytoagree 25 5 12
criminalacts criminalactsareOK
Morelikelytoagree 47 18 26
criminalactsareOK
Committed No 16 3 6
anti-socialbehaviour Yes 55 18 33
inthelastyear
cont.nextpage
Variable Category Offender(%) Frequentoffender(%) Seriousoffender(%)

Areafactors
Disorderproblems Noproblems 15 4 7
inthearea One-to-threeproblems 28 6 12
Fourormoreproblems 38 11 23
Amounttodo Quitealot 22 5 11
inthearea Notverymuchornothing 30 8 16
Familyfactors
Whethergeton Getonwellwithparent(s) 26 6 13
withparents Getonbadlywithat 56 31 35
leastoneparent
Youngperson’s Goodparentingskills 25 6 12
perceptionofparents Poorparentingskills 38 13 26
Whetherfriendsor No 20 4 10
siblingshavebeenin
troublewithpolice Yes 47 15 24
inlastyear
Whetherparentsever No 23 5 11
beenintroublewith Yes 52 23 33
thepolice
Howmuchyoucare Alot 22 5 11
aboutwhatyour Alittleornotatall 40 12 22
parents/guardiansthink
Parents/guardians Parentsknowalloffriends 19 3 11
knowwhoyour Parentsonlyknow
friendsare someoffriends 32 9 16
Youngpeople’s Parentsperceivedtohave
perceptionofparents’ lessrelaxedattitude 25 5 12
attitudestocriminal Parentsperceivedtohave
behaviour morerelaxedattitude 48 24 29
Freetimespentwith Sometoalloftime 24 5 12
parents Littleornotime 46 12 23
Schoolfactors
Whetherevertruanted No 21 5 11
Yes 48 25 27
Whethereverbeen No 25 5 12
suspendedorexpelled Yes 55 22 35
Perceptionofschool Goodperception 26 6 12
Badperception 38 13 24
Whetherparticipate Yes 26 6 12
inafter-schoolgroups No 30 9 19
(Source:HomeOffice2005)
Themostimportantfactorsinclude,indescendingorderofimportance:
• Havingbeendrunkonceormoreamonthinlast12months(associatedwith72percentof
offenders)
• Havingtakendrugsinlast12months(associatedwith70percentofoffenders)
• Gettingonbadlywithatleastoneparent(associatedwith56percentofoffenders)
• Havingcommittedanti-socialbehaviourinthepastyear(55percentassociated)
• Havingbeensuspendedorexpelledfromschool(55percent)
• Parentswhohavebeenintroublewiththepolice(52percent).
Anti-socialbehaviouris,ofcourse,akeyriskfactorassociatedwithoffending.Inresponse,the
Governmenthasdevelopedacomprehensiveprogrammeofordersandsupportforyoungpeoplewho
engageinanti-socialbehaviour.Butcrucially,itisnotthecasethatallyoungpeoplewhoare
persistentlyanti-socialprogresstomoreseriouscrime.HomeOfficeresearchshowsthatjustoverhalf
therespondentswhoreportedcommittinganactofanti-socialbehaviourinthepreceding12months
hadalsocommittedacoreoffence.Thiscompareswith16percentforthosewhohadnotalso
demonstratedanti-socialbehaviour.Thosewhocommittedanti-socialbehaviourfrequentlywere
significantlymorelikelythantheinfrequentoffendergrouptohavealsocommittedanoffence–77
percentversus46percent(HomeOffice2005).
Severaladditionalfactorsemergefromthetableasbeingparticularlyassociatedwithyoungpeople
whooffend:
• Havingaparentwhoisanoffender,poorrelationswithparentsand/orspendinglesstimewith
parents
• Disorderinthelocalareaandlackofadultinterventioninyouthactivities
• Lackofextracurricularactivitiesand/orhavinglittleornothingtodointhelocalarea
• Peersandsiblingswhooffendand/orspendingmoretimewithpeersratherthanparents
• Truantingorbeingexpelledfromschool.
Inaddition,severalprotectivefactorsemerge:
• Highlevelsofcollectiveefficacylocally
• Engaginginpositivesocialisingactivities,andlotstodolocally
• Havingagoodrelationshipwithparents
• Havingpositivepeerrelationships
• Havingapositiveschoolexperience.
Theseareallcontextualfactorsrelatingtothefamilyandsocialcontextwithinwhichtheindividual
lives.Again,thispresentsachallengesince,astheanalysisaboverevealed,Britishyouth(particularly
thosefromdisadvantagedbackgrounds)tendtospendmoretimewithpeersandlesstimewith
parentsthanthoseinothercountries,andspendlesstimeinpurposefulactivitiesthanmore
advantagedyoungpeople.Butthekeyfindinghereistheimportanceoffamilialandsocialcontextto
offending–somethingwereturntoinSection6.
Researchalsoallowsustounderstandbetterhowandwhycharacteristicssuchaspoorparentingand
moretimespentwithpeersimpactonlikelihoodofoffending.Inlargepart,thisisduetohowthese
factorsimpactonyoungpeople’semotionalandsocialdevelopment.
Itisimportanttorememberthatnotallyoungpeoplewhodisplaytheseriskfactorswillgoonto
becomeseriousoffenders.Whilethestatisticalassociationsbetweenriskfactorsandyouthoffending
havebeenclearlydemonstrated,thecausalmechanismsarelesswellunderstood.Intheabsenceof
definitiveevidenceoncauseandeffect,weshouldthinkoftheseriskfactorsastendingtopredispose
youngpeopletocrime.
Butmanypeoplewhoexperiencetheseriskfactorswillbeabletoovercometheirinfluencesandavoid
crime,withouttheneedforinterventionintheirlives.Thisshouldprovideastrongwarningagainst
interventionsthatimposeharmorrestrictionsonyoungpeopleandtheirfamiliesbecauseofwhat
theymight dointhefuture.Giventhatwecannotbesurewhatpeoplewilldointhefuture,andthe
well-knownphenomenon,knownaslabelling,thatyoungpeoplewhoaretreatedascriminalsoften
goontobecomecriminals(McAraandMcVie2007),weshouldavoidcoercingchildrenandfamilies
intoprogrammesonthebasisthatweknowwhatisbestforthem.
Theimportanceofsocialandemotionalskills
Belowweexaminetheevidenceontheroleofsocialandemotionaldevelopmentinyouthbehaviour
andoffending,beforeexplaininghowtheriskfactorsidentifiedaboveacttoincreaseayoung
person’schancesofoffendingasaresultoftheirimpactonsocialandemotionaldevelopment.
Theimportanceofemotionalandsocialskillstolifechancesingeneralisgainingrecognitionin
governmentandbeyond.TheanalysisbyLeonFeinsteinandcolleaguesofthe1970BritishCohort
Studyshowsthatemotionalandsocialwell-beinginyoungadulthood,includinghighself-esteem,
internallocusofcontrol(thedegreetowhicheventsareperceivedasbeingwithintheircontrol)and
positivepeerrelations,hadaconsiderableeffectindeterminingadultbehavioursforthisgroup,
includingoffending(reportedinMargoetal 2006).
WorkbyHeckmanandcolleagues–whichmeasuredseparatelytheimpactofcognitiveskills(as
shownthroughqualificationsandsocialandemotionalskills)indicatedbylocusofcontrolandself-
esteemmeasures–foundthatlowlevelsofsocialandemotionalskillsandcognitiveskillswereequally
importantdeterminantsofthelikelihoodofservingajailtermandoftakingpartinillegalactivities
(Heckmanetal 2006).
Butthedistinctionbetweenemotional/socialandcognitiveskillsisafalseone.Inordertolearnto
read,achildrequiresnotonlytheintellectualcapacitytolearn,butalsothepsychologicalpropensity
–forinstance,toconcentrateonlearningthewords–tobemotivatedtostudy,andtobeconfident
enoughtotesttheirreadingskills.Socialdevelopmentalsocomesintoit,sothatifthechildfeelsan
urgetothrowtheirbookattheteacherinfrustrationatthedifficultyofthetaskset,theyrequirean
understandingofcauseandeffectandconcernfortheconsequencesoftheiractions(whichmaybe
longerterm),aswellastheabilitytocontrolhowtheyexpresstheiremotions.Tobehavewell,achild
requiresnotonlyemotionalmaturityandsocialskills,butalsotheintellectualcapacitytounderstand
whatisrightandwrong.
Wehaveconductednewanalysistoexaminetherelativesignificanceofdifferentemotionalfactorsin
childhoodforbehaviouraloutcomesinadolescence.ThisanalysisusesdatafromtheBritishCohort
Studytolookatwhichchildhoodfactorsareassociatedwithbehaviouralproblemsbyage16.Our
findings,methodologyandmodelsareoutlinedfullyintheAppendixtothisreport.Wecontrolledfor
awiderangeofsocioeconomicanddemographicvariablesatbirth,ages10and16,andincluded
measuresoflocusofcontrolatage10,self-esteematage10,thedifferenceinstandardisedlocusof
controlandself-esteemscoresbetweenages10and16,arangeofbehavioural/emotionalindicators
atage10,andreadingandmathematicaltestscoresatage10.
Whatouranalysisshowsisthat,whilesocioeconomicfactorsremaincentraltoexplainingwhysome
youngpeopleoffend,indicatorsofemotionalwell-beingatage10–locusofcontrol,self-esteem,
andsomebehaviouralandemotionalindicators–haveasignificantrelationshipwithbehavioural
outcomesatage16.
Weconsideredwhichfactorswereassociatedwith:
• Higherlevelsofaggressiveconductproblemsatage16(evidencedbyfightingorbullying)
• Non-aggressiveconductproblemsatage16(evidencedbystealing,lyinganddisobedience)
• Hyperactivityatage16(evidencedbyfidgeting,restlessnessandinattention)
• Emotionalanxietyatage16(evidencedbymisery,worriesandbeingfearfulofnewsituations).
Again,emotionalindicatorsatage10seemedtobehighlyimportantinexplainingvarianceacross
theseoutcomes.
So,children’semotionalwell-beingatage10canpredicttheirbehaviouratage16.Thissuggeststhat
interventionsaimedatprimaryschoolagechildrenthatimproveemotionalwell-beingcouldreduce
theriskofcommittingoffencesorconductdisordersatage16.Crucially,therisk-factoranalysis
reportedthusfardoessupporttheclaimthatwenowhaveagoodunderstandingofthemost
importantfactorsunderpinningoffending.Thisagainhighlightstheimportanceofinterventionsaimed
attheprimarylevel–reachingyoungpeoplebeforetheyoffendandwhileitisstillpossibleto
influencethesocialandemotionalinfluenceswhichpredisposechildrentooffend.
Beforeexamininginmoredetailhowchildrendevelopemotionalwell-being,inthenextsectionwe
lookathowandwhenchildrendevelopemotionalandmoralmaturity–theabilitytocontrol
behaviourandemotionalresponses.Thisisimportanttoascertaininghowappropriateitistoexpect
certainbehavioursfromyoungpeople.
5.Thedevelopmentofmoralresponsibility
Keytothecurrentapproachtoyouthoffendingisthebeliefthatchildrenasyoungas10yearsold
canbeheldcriminallyresponsible–thattheyareabletounderstandtheconsequencesoftheir
actions.Butdoespsychologicalandscientificresearchsupportthebeliefthat10-year-oldsaremorally
andemotionallymatureenoughtobeheldcriminallyresponsible?Andwhatdoesresearchteachus
aboutwhatkindsofinterventionswouldbemosteffectiveindeterringyoungpeoplefromcrime?
Bothpsychologyandbehaviouralscienceprovidesomerevealinganswerstothesequestions.
Phasesofpsychosocialdevelopment
Inthe1950sand1960sthepsychologistEriksonarguedthattheprocessofpsychosocial
developmentconsistsofeightphases(seeTable5.1).Eachstageisregardedasa‘psychosocialcrisis’
thatarisesanddemandsresolutionbeforethenextstageofpsychologicaldevelopmentcanbe
satisfactorilynegotiated.Thesestagesareconceivedinanalmostarchitecturalsense.Satisfactory
learningandresolutionofeachcrisisarenecessaryifthechildistomanagethenextandsubsequent
stagessatisfactorily.
Table5.1highlightsthekeystagesidentifiedbyErikson.Thefirstisnowcommonlyknownin
psychologycirclesas‘earlyattachment’–thechildmustfeelsecureandnurturedbythecaregiver,to
avoiddevelopingasenseofinsecurity.Stagetwoinvolvesthechildgraspingself-control,butheor
shestillrequiressupportandnurturefromthecaregivertoovercomethepsychosocialcrisis.Although
hisstagesofdevelopmentseemmainlytodescribetheprocessofgainingindependenceandmoral
autonomy,Eriksonemphasisestheneedforsecurity,protection,supportandstructurethroughout.
Withoutthese,heargues,thepsychologicaldevelopmentofthechildwillbestuntedorundermined.
Table5.1:Erikson’seightstagesofpsychosocialdevelopment
Stage Ages Basicconflict Importantevent Summary
1.Oral- Birthto12-18 Trustvs.mistrust Feeding Theinfantmustformaloving,trusting
sensory months relationshipwiththecaregiver,orrisks
developingasenseofmistrustandinsecurity.
2.Muscular- 18months Autonomyvs. Toilettraining Thechild’senergiesaredirectedtowardthe
anal to3years shame/doubt developmentofphysicalskills,includingwalking,
grasping.Ifnotencouragedandsupported,the
childrisksexperiencingshameanddoubt.
3.Locomotor 3-6years Initiativevs. Independence Thechildcontinuestobecomemoreassertive
guilt andtotakemoreinitiative,butmaybetoo
forceful,whichneedstobehandledsensitively.
4.Latency 6-12years Industryvs. School Thechildmustbehelpedtomeetdemandsto
inferiority learnnewskillsorriskasenseofinferiority,
failureandincompetence.
5.Adolescence 12-18years Identityvs. Peerrelationships Theteenagermustachieveasenseofidentityin
roleconfusion occupation,sexroles,politics,andreligion.
6.Young 19-40years Intimacyvs. Loverelationships Theyoungadultmustdevelopintimate
adulthood isolation relationshipsorsufferfeelingsofisolation.
7.Middle 40-65years Generativityvs. Parenting Eachadultmustfindsomewaytosatisfyand
adulthood stagnation supportthenextgeneration.
8.Maturity 65todeath Egointegrity Reflectiononand Theculminationisastrongsenseofagencyand
vs.despair acceptanceof fulfilment.
one’slife
Source:AdaptedfromErikson(1950,1958,1964,1968)
Erikson’stheoryholdsthatchildrendonotreachemotionalmaturityuntilaroundtheageof12(and
thatthisisnotemotionalmaturityinthesensethatadultswouldunderstandit,butthecapacityto
understandthedifferencebetweenrightandwrong).Itsuggeststhatprocessesvitaltodevelopment
includetheexperienceofdemocraticplay,whereidentityandcreativitycanflourish,alongside
purposeful,orderedinteraction–whetherthroughinteractionwithparents,siblingsorpeers–where
senseofpurposeandunderstandingofstatusandrolecandevelop.Botharerequiredforsecure
development(Erikson1968).
Researchalsosuggeststherearecleardevelopmentaldifferencesbetweengirlsandboys.Slowersocial
andemotionaldevelopmentofboyshaslongbeenusedtoexplainthedisproportionatelyhigh
percentageofseriouscrimescommittedbymalejuveniles(Cohn1991).OneinfluentialUSstudy
foundsignificantgenderdifferencesin‘egodevelopment’–essentially,emotionalandpsychological
maturity–withgirlstendingtodisplaymoreegodevelopmentateachgrade,andthegapbeginning
toclosebytheendofhighschool,roughlyattheageof18(Cohn1991).Thekeypointhereisthat
priortotheageof18,someboysstilldisplayedpsychologicalimmaturity.
Cohortanalysissupportsclaimsofgenderdifferencesinthedevelopmentofemotionalmaturity.While
girlsarefoundtobemoreablethanboystocontrolbehaviouratages10and16,theytendtohave
lowerself-esteemthroughoutadolescence,whichsuggeststhattheyaremorevulnerabletopeer
influencesatthisage(Feinstein2000).Thebiggestgenderdifferenceisforthedevelopmentof
‘attentiveness’attheageoften,anageatwhichboysdoparticularlybadly:thismeanstheyaremuch
lessablethangirlstotakeininformationandmemoriseit.
Evidencefromthephysicalsciences
Thispsychologicalandsocialscienceresearchisbackedupbyresearchinthephysicalsciences.
Neuroscienceshowsthatthepartsofthebrainthatareresponsibleforselfawareness,emotional
control,moralunderstanding(rightandwrong)andaffectiveresponsiveness–reactingappropriately
tosituationsandunderstandinghowtomanageoneself–istheprefrontalcortexinthefrontallobes
(StussandAlexander2000).Thereisawideconsensusthatfrontallobedevelopmentisnotcomplete
byage10(Gieddetal 1999).Infact,magneticresonanceimagery(MRI)scansofthebrainsofpost-
adolescentsrevealthatthefrontallobecontinuestomatureintoearlyadulthood.Thismeansthatthe
capacityofthefrontallobetocontroltheexcessesoftheemotionalsystemisnotfullyoperational
duringadolescence(Sowelletal 1999,Goldberg2001).
Researchfurthershowsthatbytheageof12,theprefrontalcortexhassproutedmanymorecells
thanarevisibleinchildren’sbrains,buttheseareimmatureandthin(Brizendine2006).Asaresultof
theincreasednumberofcells,emotionalimpulsesfromtheamygdala(theemotionalcentreofthe
brain)tothemotionalcontrolcentreoftheprefrontalcortexaremorerapidanddramatic.The
underdevelopedprefrontalcortexisoftenunabletohandletheincreasedtrafficfromtheamygdala
andbecomesoverwhelmed(ibid).Thisiswhattakesplacewhenteenagersactwithoutconsidering
consequencesandbecomeresentfulofauthoritythattriestoheadofftheirimpulses.
Ittakesseveralyearsfortheconnectionsbetweentheprefrontalcortexandamygdalatobecome
structurallysound.Forthistohappen,asubstancecalledmyelinneedstocoatthecells.Thismaynot
happentillthelateteens.Withoutthiscoating,whichallowsforquickerconnectionstobemadeto
theprefrontalcortex,emotionalimpulsesoftenresultinimmediate,rawbehaviours(ibid)–andexcess
emotionalimpulsesareregularoccurrencesinadolescentbrains.
Psychologicalresearchalsofindsthathormonesurgesduringlaterchildhoodandadolescence
(testosteroneinboysandoestrogeningirls)canaccountforviolentbehavioursandemotional
responses(Brizendine2006).Thehormonesassociatedwithaggression,bothinmalesandfemales,
arecalledandrogens.Theybegintoriseearlyinpubertyandcontinueuntiltheypeakatage19in
femalesand21inmales.InastudyattheUniversityofUtah,levelsofaggressioninteenagegirls
werefoundtobelinkedtolevelsoftheandrogenandrostenedione(ibid).
So,underdevelopmentofthepartofthebrainresponsibleforbehaviourcontrol,plushormonal
imbalancesthroughouttheteenageyears,canexplainwhyadolescentsaremorelikelythanadultsto
submittotheiremotionsandresorttohigh-riskbehaviour.Youngadolescents,forexamplethose
undertheageof14,arebiologicallyandemotionallylessabletocontroltheirbehavioursand
understandtheconsequences.
Thisresearchshouldnotbetakentosuggestthatadolescentsshouldnotbeexpectedtoconformto
adultnormsofbehaviour,ortohaveadultunderstandingofwhatisacceptableandunacceptable.
However,itdoessuggestthateffortstocurbyouthcrimeshouldaccountforadifferentandless-
developedcapacitytocontrolbehaviourinthefirstplace.Thisresearchraisesthequestionofwhether
weshouldreinstatetherequirementofdoliincapax,inwhichtheprosecutioniscompelledtoprove
thatachildundertheageof14wascapableofmakingamoraljudgementabouthisorherbehaviour.
Italsosuggeststhatmeasures,suchasASBOs,whichrequiretheirrecipientstothinkrationally
throughtheconsequencesoftheiractions(bothforthepeopletowhomtheybeing‘anti-social’and
intermsoftheriskoffurtherpunishment)arelesslikelytobeeffectivewithyoungadolescents.
Inthefollowingsectionweconsiderthefactorsinvolvedinchilddevelopment,inorderto
demonstratewhereinterventionsaimingtopreventyouthoffendingcouldbestbedirectediftheyare
tobeeffective.
6.Raisingchildren:theinfluenceoffamilialandsocialcontext
Awidebodyofresearchsupportstherisk-factoranalysiscitedhere:thatyouthoffendingemerges
fromparticularsocialcontexts.Inthissectionweexaminesomeofthisevidence.Oneofthemost
importantriskorprotectivefactorsisparenting.Muchresearch–fromsocialscience,butalsofrom
cognitiveandbehaviouraldisciplines–supportstheargumentthatfamilyplaysakeyroleinayoung
person’ssocialdevelopment.
First,weknowthatcertainsocioeconomicfactors,suchaswhetherachildreceivesfreeschoolmeals,
livesinrentedorownedpropertyandwhethertheyliveinadeprivedneighbourhood,areall
predictiveofoffending(HomeOffice2005)–probablybecausebotharealsoproxiesforlowincome.
Bio-socialcriminologistshaveshownthatdeprivationimpactsindirectlyonbehaviourbyincreasing
thestresslevelsoftheindividual.Robinson(2004)foundthattheabilitytocontrolbehaviour,while
rootedinthefunctioningofthefrontallobe,isrelatedtolevelsofserotonininthebrain–whichare,
inturn,affectedbyenvironmentalfactorssuchasdeprivation,stressandinstability.Hefoundthat
thatlowself-controlisstronglyandinverselyrelatedtolevelsofserotonin,andthatlevelsweremuch
lowerinindividualslivinginstressfulordisadvantagedsituations.
Relatedbiologicalandneurologicaldisciplinesalsotendtosupportthethesisthatenvironmental
factors(includingdeprivation)haveaseriousimpactonbehaviour.TheneurogeneticistProfessorLiz
Gouldhasshown,usingmarmosetmonkeys,thatpovertycandamagethebrainbystuntingthe
growthofneurons,asthebraindivertsenergytowardssurvivalratherthancreatingnewcellsand
connections(Gouldetal 1998).Andexperimentswithrhesusmonkeyshaveshownthat‘peer-raised’
monkeyshavelowerlevelsofserotoninthanparentally-raisedmonkeys,andarethereforelessableto
exertselfcontrol(Bennettetal 2002,Kraemeretal 1998).
Wemustbecarefulabouthowweunderstandandusesuchresearch,butitdoessuggestthat
disadvantageimpactsonbehaviournotonlyinobviousways,suchasbyincreasingtheopportunities
andmotivationstooffend,butalsoviatheconsequentinstabilityandstressitcancauseandtheway
inwhichthisimpactsonbraindevelopment(Gould1998,Margoetal 2006).
Parenting
Increasingly,evidenceisemergingabouthowparentinginparticularimpactsonsocialandemotional
development.Cohortanalystsshowsthatyoungpeoplewhohadstrong,supportivefamily
relationshipsweremorelikelytodevelopgoodnon-cognitions,andresearchsuggeststhatthenature
oftheinteractionbetweenparentsandchildismoreimportantthanstructuralfactorssuchasincome
andparentaleducationinpredictingthedevelopmentofsocialandemotionalskills(Feinstein2000,
Bynneretal 2002,Blandenetal 2004,Feinsteinetal 2005,Blanden2006).
Specificparentingstylesareproventobeparticularlyimportantinpositivesocialandemotional
development(Stanleyed2005,Waldfogel2006).Theseinclude:
• Consistencyinrulesandstyle
•Warmthandinterest
•Stabilityandsecurity
•Authoritywithouthostility.
Conversely,specificparentingstylesemergeasbeingnegativelyassociatedwithemotionalandsocial
development(ibid).Theseinclude:
•Hostility
•Usingphysicalviolence,suchassmacking
•Lackofinterestanddisengagement
•Inconsistency.
Thisevidenceillustratesthemechanismsthroughwhichpoorparentingisasignificantriskfactorfor
anti-socialandoffendingbehaviour.Table4.3showedthathavingparentswhohavecomeinto
contactwiththepolice,parentswhodonotdiscourageyoungpeoplefromanti-socialbehaviour,or
parentswhoareperceivedbychildrentohavepoorparentingstylesareallriskfactorsthatarehighly
predictiveofoffendingbehaviour.Previousresearchalsoshowstheimpactofparentalhostilityand
lackofdisciplineathomeinpredictingpooreremotionaldevelopment(Waldfogel2006).
Awealthofresearchprovesthecausallinkbetweenhittingorsmackingchildrenandincreased
aggressivebehaviour(Lyon2000).TheNottinghamResearchStudyoncorporalpunishment(Newson
andNewson1972)foundthatthetwomostfrequentindicatorsforhavingacriminalrecordbefore
theageof20werehavingbeenhitonceaweekormoreatage11,andhavingamotherstrongly
committedtocorporalpunishmentatthatage.Unfortunatelycorporalpunishmentisnotoftenan
indicatorusedinrisk-factoranalysisforoffending,soitisnotpossibletocomparethestrengthofits
connectionwithbehaviourtootherknownriskfactors.
Thereisalsoevidencethatlivinginpovertylimitstheabilitiesofparentstonurturechildreninways
thatprotectthemfromtheriskfactorsforoffending.Ithasbeensuggestedthatlivinginpoverty
damagesthementalhealthofparentswhichinturnrestrictstheirabilitytoshowwarmthandinterest
intheirchildrenandtoprovideconsistent,supportivesupervision.Parentswhoarestrugglingtomake
alivingarealsolesslikelytohavethetimetosuperviseandplaywiththeirchildren,orthemoneyto
paysomeoneelsetodothiswell(Jamesand1995,WeatherburnandLind2001).
Intherecommendationsofthisreport,wearguethatmuchcanbedonetosupportparents,via
particularinterventionsandprogrammesaswellasmoregeneralreformstoimprovetheopportunities
toworkflexiblyandbalanceworkwithchild-caringandchild-rearing.Buteffectingaculturechange
tohowparentsinteractwithchildrenisalong-termanddifficultgoalinwhichpolicyplaysbutasmall
part.Nonetheless,thereisaroleforlegislationevenbeyondtheareasofwork-lifebalanceandservice
support.
IntheUK,unlikeothercountries,wehavefallenshortoflegallybanningthesmackingofchildrenby
parents–eventhoughpreviousworkhassuggestedthatmanyparentscanmisunderstandthe
guidanceandtooeasilyfallintogenuinephysicalassault(Lyon2000).Itissurelymorallyconfusingto
childrenthattheycannowbetriedforassaultforsmackinganadultatage10,butarenot
themselveslegallyprotectedfrombeingsmackedbyaparentatthisage.Perhaps,asLyonargues,
thisalsoneedstobelookedatwhenthinkingabouthowtoembedadultnormsofbehaviourorhow
legislationcanacttochangecultureandbehaviour.Makingalegalcasetoprotectchildrenfrom
abuseandsmackingbyparentswouldsendoutadifferentmessageabouthowweshouldtreatand
viewchildren–animportantoneifweareindeedtomeaningfullyimprovethefamilyandsocial
contextinwhichchildrendevelop.
Activitiesandsocialandemotionaldevelopment
InTable4.2,wesawthathavinglittletodointhelocalareawaspredictiveofoffendingbehaviour.
Otherresearchhasshownthatinvolvementincertainextra-curricularactivitiescanprotectagainstthe
developmentofanti-socialoroffendingbehaviour–andthat,conversely,lackofparticipationin
purposefulactivitiescanpredictoffendingoranti-socialbehaviour(Margoetal 2006).Consistentand
regularparticipationinatleastoneextra-curricularactivityperweekcanreducethelikelihoodofdrug
andalcoholproblems,aggression,anti-socialbehaviour,crimeorbecomingateenageparent.Thereis
alsoplentyofevidencethatparticipationinextra-curricularactivitiesimproveseducationaloutcomes.
Analysisbyipprofthe1970BritishCohortStudy(themostrecentlongitudinalstudyavailable)shows
thatcertainextracurricularactivitiesarepositivelyassociatedwithdevelopingamoreinternallocusof
control(thatis,believingeventstobemorewithinone’scontrol)(Margoetal 2006).Theseactivities
musttakeplaceinagroupsetting,withaclearhierarchy,well-definedaims–inthatthegroupis
workingtowardssomething,suchasafinalperformance–andmustrequireregularmeetings.
Evenbearinginmindthedifferentcontextof1980sBritain(whenthiscohortwillhavereached
childhoodandadolescence),thesefindingsarenonethelessintuitivelyattractivebecausetheyshift
focustowardsthekindsofpurposefulactivitiesthatthepublicsupportsforyoungpeople(listed
below).Wecanunderstandthewayinwhichtheseactivitiesimpactpositivelyonyoungpeoplevia
theopportunitiestogainsocialskillssuchascommunication,teamwork,patience,self-esteem,
motivationandapplication.Theyalsoprovideopportunitiesforyoungpeopletoengagepositively
withpeersinpurposefulactivity–again,positivepeerrelationsfeaturestronglyaspreventative
factorsinyoungoffending(seeTable4.2).
Activitiesthatcombinetheappropriatelevelofskillsacquisition,hierarchy,interactionwithadult
authorityfiguresandconstructiveactivityinclude:
•Sport,dramaorartsbasedactivitiesatwhichattendanceisregularandconsistentandskillsare
acquired
•Activitiesthatinvolveworkingtowardsalong-termgoalandinwhichskillsareacquired,suchas
thoserunbytheScoutsAssociationorGirlguidingUK
•Cadettraining,suchasarmyorpolicecadetsor‘boys’brigades’,whichcombinebothofthe
above.
Activitiesthatareassociatedwithoffendinginclude:
•Regularunsupervisedsocialisingwithpeersindisadvantaged,high-crimeareas
•Regularsocialisingwithanti-socialyoungpeoplewithoutsupervision.
WeexaminetheseactivitiesinmoredetailinSection7.
Theroleoflocalcommunities
Studiesthathavemeasuredtherelationshipbetweenindividualriskfactors,neighbourhood
characteristicsandjuvenileoffendingshowthatchildrenandyoungpeoplewithhighriskfactorswere
significantlymorelikelytoseriouslyoffendinthemostdisadvantagedneighbourhoods.Butinmore
affluentneighbourhoods,predictionsoffuturecriminalbehaviourbasedonrisk-factorassessment–
includingthestateofthefamilyandrelationswithparents–didnotmanifest(SmithandMcVie
2003,MacDonaldandMarsh2005,Sampsonetal 1997,Furlongetal 2003).
Thisagainhighlightsthepowerofsocioeconomiccontext–thatis,area-baseddeprivation–in
predictingachild’sfuturebehaviourandlifechances:anystrategyaimingtotargetyouthanti-social
Figure6.1:Areas
andgroupsat England and Wales average 16
highriskof
perceivinghigh Age 16 to 24 22
anti-social Unskilled household social grade 24
behaviour Black and Minority Ethnic groups 24
Source:Wood
Living in a flat or maisonette 25
(2005)
In very bad health (self defined) 28
Victims of crime in last year 29
Social rented sector 30
London region 24
10% of areas with highest propotion aged 10 to 24 years 27
10% of areas with lowest propotion couples with children 27
10% of areas with lowest proportion economically active 28
10% of areas with lowest proportion white 29
Hard pressed ACORN type 31
Low collective efficacy 33
Inner city 34
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Percentage
behaviourmusttargetdisadvantagedcommunities.Butoneofthemostpowerfulriskorprotective
factorsforanti-socialbehaviour,showninFigure6.1,isthelevelofcollectiveefficacyinalocalarea.
‘Collectiveefficacy’istheabilitytosocialisetheyoungandmaintainnormsofrespectforthelaw,and
foroneanother(Sampson1999).Thefactorsthatmakeforcollectiveefficacy–densefriendship
networks,communitysupervisionofteenagersandhighlevelsofcivicparticipation–makecollective
efficacyaveryclosecousinof‘socialcapital’(Dixonetal 2006).Buttheconceptisamoreaction-
orientatedone,focusinginparticularonhowcommunitiesmobilisethemselvesfortheachievementof
publicgoods(SampsonandGroves1989).
AsFigure6.1(above)shows,lowcollectiveefficacyisoneofthemostaccuratepredictorsofhigh
levelsofanti-socialbehaviourinEnglandandWales.Butthemostdetailedresearchhasbeencarried
outintheUnitedStates.InastudyofChicagoneighbourhoods,mutualtrustandneighbourly
altruismwereidentifiedaskeyfactorsinexplaininginter-neighbourhooddifferencesincrimerates.
Communitiescharacterisedbyanonymityandlimitedacquaintance,unsupervisedteenagepeergroups
andlowlevelsofcivicparticipationfacedanincreasedriskofcrimeandviolence(SampsonandLaub
1997,CoteandHealy2001).
Thecentralideahereisnotthatcollectiveefficacymakesresidentsmorelikelytointerveneinserious
crimes.Instead,itenhancestheirpreponderancetointerveneintheprecursorsofcrime–forexample,
bydiscouragingthegatheringofteenagegangsordrugtaking(Halpern2001).Thusinterventions
thatencouragecollectiveefficacyincommunitiesarelikelytoimpactpositivelyonyouthanti-social
behaviour.
Therearetwowaystounderstandhowthiswouldimpact:first,becauseresidentswouldbemore
likelytointervenetomaintainlocalcivicorder,butalsobecausecollectiveefficacywithinacommunity
hasbeenassociatedwithincreasesinauthoritativeparenting(Simonsetal 2005).Thismaybe
becauselocalnetworksofparentstendtosetbehaviouralnormswithinacommunity,decidingwhat
behaviourisappropriateandhowitshouldbedealtwith,andsupporteachotherindoingso(Jones
2005).Thiswillbeparticularlyimportantinareaswherethereisalowerratioofmentowomen,or
wherethereisalargenumberofsingleyoungermothers,sotheratioofadultstoyoungpeopleis
lower(Margoetal 2006).
Thekeyfindingfromthisresearchisthatyoungpeople’sbehaviourisstronglyinfluencedbytheir
familialandsocialcontext.Inordertobeeffective,strategiestopreventoffendingmusttherefore
targetnotjusttheindividualchild,buttheirsocialcontexttoo.Thiswillmeantacklingfamilyrisk
factors,communityriskfactorsandpeer-groupriskfactors.Withoutdoingso,itisunlikelythatmuch
impactwillbemadeonratesofyouthcrime.
However,wemustagainacknowledgethelimitsoflegislationinaffectingculturechange.Wecannot
expecttherealwaystobeapolicyleveravailabletochangepeople’sbehaviourindesirableways,and
itmaybethatweneedtolookinotherdirectionsifwewanttochangethewaythatadultsinteract
withchildreninthecommunity.
7.Whatworks?Proveneffectiveinterventions
Inthissectionwedrawoninternationalevidenceofsuccessfulandunsuccessfulapproachestoyouth
offending.Welookatinterventionsaimedatparenting,schools,communitiesandsituationalcrime
prevention(includingASBOs),aimingtoroottheexplanationfortheefficacyofdifferentapproaches
inthetheoryandresearchfindingsdetailedabove.
Returningtoouroriginalmodelofcrimepreventionprogrammes,weconsiderinterventionsthat
operateattwolevels:
• Primaryprevention –universalapproachesthataimtopreventcrimebeforeitoccurs
• Secondaryprevention –approachesthatfocusonindividualswhoareatthehighestriskof
offending.
Drawingoninternationalevidence,wefindseveralapproachesthatareparticularlypromisingfor
preventingoffending.Theseare:
• Primaryprevention–parentingprogrammes,earlyinterventionincludingpre-schooland
daycareprogrammes,after-schoolactivities.
• Secondaryprevention –therapeuticinterventions,holisticfamilyinterventions.
Arangeofapproachesalsoemergeasbeingparticularlyineffectiveatpreventingyouthcrime.Theseare:
• ASBOs
• Juvenilecurfews
• Probations
• Bootcamps
• ‘Scaredstraight’programmes.
Weexaminethelatterlistofinterventionsfirst,beforemovingontolookatwhatworks.
Ineffectiveinterventions
Althoughtheyarecommonlyseenasmainlyaimedatyoungpeoplewhohavealreadycommitted
crime,theinterventionsoutlinedbelowareoftenusedtodeterchildrenandyoungpeoplefromcrime.
Weassesseachoneinturn,inthecontextofpreventingcrimeratherthandealingwithchildrenwho
havealreadyoffended.
Anti-SocialBehaviourOrders
Anti-SocialBehaviourOrders(ASBOs)areakeypartofUKanti-social-behaviourlegislation.They
targetyoungpeopleforlow-levelproblembehaviour–mostoftendisruptioninthelocalarea–which
isnotdeemed‘criminal’.
ASBOsarepartofatieredresponsetooffending,whichincludes,inthefollowingorder:
• Warningletters
• Formalwarningletters
• ReferraltoYouthInclusionProgrammes
• ParentingContracts(voluntary)
• AnAppropriateBehaviourContract(ABC)establishedwiththefamily’slandlordorthepolice
• AParentingOrder(non-voluntary)
• ACurfewOrder
• Finally,anASBO.
Althoughtheywereoriginallyintendedtobehandedouttochildrenandyoungpeopleonlyin
‘exceptionalcircumstances’,morethanhalfofallASBOshavebeenreceivedbychildren(HomeOffice
2005).
Thisapproachhasbeencriticisedasa‘governmentallyorchestratedmoralpanic’(Pitts2005:25)that
servestocriminalisebehaviourthatmightotherwisebeconsiderednormalteenagemisbehaviour.
SomearguethatASBOsspeeduptheprocessofentrytothecriminaljusticesystem(seesection.8).
DoASBOswork?Thereislittleevidencetosuggesttheydo,andsomeevidencethattheydonot
workatall.Aswehaveseen,ratesofanti-socialbehaviourhavenotdeclinedinlightofthese
measures.Whatismore,thebreachrateforASBOsimposedonunder-18sisaround55percent,of
which46percentresultedinacustodialsentencein2004(NationalAuditOffice2007)–supporting
theclaimthatASBOlegislationcanfast-trackyoungpeopleintothecriminaljusticesystem.Similarly,
Table7.1showsthatthelessformalAppropriateBehaviourContracts(ABCs)werebreachedin37per
centofcases.Thechildreninquestionweremostlyknowntosocialwelfare,educationalandcriminal
justiceagencies,andweremainlyexcludedfromschool(BullockandJones,2004)..
EvidencecitedearliersuggeststhatASBOsarenotsendingamessagetoyoungpeoplethattheir
behaviourisinappropriate,rather,insomeofthemost-at-riskgroups,theyarebecomingasymbolof
coolrebellion–a‘badgeofhonour’(EdwardsandHatch2004).ASBOsseemparticularlyunlikelyto
workwithyoungadolescents,forexamplethoseunder14,whoareoftennotbiologicallyor
emotionallydevelopedenoughtorespondtoitinthewaysthatareintendedbythecourts.Thereis
somedebateastowhetherthedifferencesobservedintheadolescentbrainarebiological,orproducts
ofaculturethatinfantilisesteenagers(Epstein2007).Theformerexplanationwouldsuggestthat
teenagersarenotreadytorespondtoASBOs.Thelattersuggeststhatsomearelikelytodesirean
ASBOasasignthattheyareleavingtheworldofchildren.
Table7.1:Theproportionofpeoplewhodidanddidnotre-engageinanti-socialbehaviourfollowingthe
threemostcommoninterventions
Intervention Proportionnotengaging Proportionengaging Mediantimetofurtheranti-
infurtheranti-social infurtheranti-social socialbehaviourforthose
behaviour behaviour thatengagedinit
Warningletter 63% 37% 73days
AcceptableBehaviour 65% 35% 155days
Contract
Anti-SocialBehaviourOrder 45% 55% 296days
Source:NationalAuditOffice(2007)
Thislackoffitbetweenourknowledgeofadolescentdevelopmentandthecurrentdeliveryof
interventiontoadolescentsindicatestherootoftheproblemwithASBOs:theydonotintroduce
properinterventionstotargettheneedsoftheyoungpersonortoaddressthecontextwithin
whichthebehaviouroccurs–families,peergroupsandcommunities.Evidenceonrelated
measureswhichrelyon‘tough’exclusions,warningsandpunishments,suggestsimilarproblems.
Curfews
Curfews–thenotionofbanningchildrenfromsocialisinginparticularplacesafteracertaintime–
havebecomepopularintheUS,andfeaturedintheearlyyearsoftheBlairgovernment,whenthe
PrimeMinisterrecommendedtheybeusedinsomeinnercityLondonareas.MostUScities
operatesomeformofjuvenilecurfew,andmostofthembelievetheyareeffective(Bannisteretal
2001).
Despitetheirapparentpopularity,thereisscantevidencethatcurfewswork.Adams(2003)
reportedfromareviewofexperimentalstudiesthatjuvenilecurfewsshowednosignificanteffect
inreducingcrime,andinsomecasesworsenedit.
Scaredstraightprogrammes
Theideabehind‘scaredstraight’isthatbyconfrontingteenagersatriskofcrimewiththerealityof
thepunishmenttheymayface,theywillbeterrifiedanddeterredfrombreakingthelaw.IntheUS,
childrenandteenagersaretakenintoprisonstomeetprisoners,andtheprogrammehasprovenvery
popular.However,ithasbeenfarfromeffective.Indeed,studiessuggestthatscaredstraight
programmesdomoreharmthangood,withsomeevidencethattheyactuallyincreasethechances
thatparticipantswilloffend(Petrosinoetal 2003).TheanalysisbyPetrosinoandcolleaguesfound
thatthescaredstraightprogrammestheyincludedintheirreview(whichwerethosethathadbeen
mostrigorouslyevaluated)increased theoddsthatayoungpersonwouldoffendby70percent.For
example,inastudyinNewJersey,41percentoftheyoungpeoplewhoparticipatedinthe
programmewentontooffend,comparedwith11percentoftheyoungpeoplewhodidnot.
Bootcamps
Bootcampsaimtoofferdiscipline,structureandhierarchiesofrespectthatrespondtothelackof
orderinayoungperson’slife.Theyoperatelikeaminiarmy–residentialinstitutionsinwhichthe
youngpeopleareexpectedtoconformtorulesandintensemilitarystyle‘training’.Yettheevidence
suggestsbootcampsdonotwork.Areviewofjuvenilejusticeinterventions(Baas2005)showedthat
juvenilebootcamps(alongwithscaredstraightprogrammes)wereamongthefewmethodsto
producenegativeoutcomes.Anearliersystematicreviewfoundthatsevenoutoftenevaluationsof
bootcampsfoundthattheyincreasedthelikelihoodofparticipantsreoffending.Noneofthethree
findingsofreductionsincrimewasstatisticallysignificant.Threeofthesevenfindingsofincreasesin
crimewerestatisticallysignificant(Aos etal 2001).
Punishingparents
Theideathatparentsshouldbepunishedfortheactionsoftheirchildrengoesbackalongway,and
wasincludedinBritishlawasearlyas1857(Arthur2005).Lawsenforcingparentalresponsibilityhave
alsobeenusedintheUSforoveracentury(Harris2006).However,thereisverylittleevidenceto
supporttheideathatpunishingparentspreventsyouthcrime.Thismaybebecausetheyareunlikely
toaddressthecomplexsetofcausesofcrime.Theyriskdamagingchildrenbyincreasingthe
harshnessandinconsistencyofparenting.Thisisaknownriskfactorforoffending.Itmaybe
increasedwhereparentswhoarealreadyincapableofcontrollingtheirchildrenarepunished,asthey
maytransferanyresultantangertotheirchildren.
Wheretheselawsexist,theytendtobeveryrarelyused.Courts– whenfacedwithanactualcaseofa
familythatisstrugglingtocontrolitschildren– seemlesswillingtoaddtofamilies’difficultieswith
legislaturethatthinksofparentsintheabstract,withouttakingintoaccountthebackgroundsof
poverty,neglectandabusethatmanyoftheseparentssharewiththeirchildren.Evenwhere
punishmentofparentshasincreased,itappearstohavehadlittleimpact.Forexample,parentsinthe
UKcanbepunishedforthefailureoftheirchildrentoattendschool.Ithasbeenreportedthat,
despiteanincreaseinprosecutionsfrom985in2005to3,713in2007,therehasbeennodecreasein
unauthorisedabsencesfromschool,whichactuallyincreasedinthatperiod(Andalo2008).
Effectiveinterventions
Theineffectiveinterventionslistedintheprevioussectionhaveonethingincommon.Theyall
respondtothedesiretoappeartoughonyouthcrime.Itseemsthattoughnessdoesnot
necessarilyleadtoeffectiveness.Anti-socialbehaviourmaybetterbetargetedwithyouthwork,
familytherapyandleisureinitiatives.Strategiesaimedattheschool,thefamilyandseekingto
tacklepeerinfluencesandtochangetheleisureculturearedoubtlessmoreeffective,asweshall
nowsee.
Theinitiativesidentifiedbelowaredividedintotwocategories:primaryinterventions,whichseek
toaddressthewidersocialandenvironmentalfactorslikelytocontributetoyouthcrime,and
secondaryinterventions,whichcompriseparentingprogrammesorearlyinterventioninchildren
consideredatriskofoffendinginlaterlife.
Primaryprevention(earlyintervention)
Researchsuggeststhatmanyoftheriskfactorsassociatedwithfamilybackgroundcanbeinfluenced
byprovidingsupporttotheearlydevelopmentofchildrenandadolescents.Effectiveapproaches
include:
• Prenatalcare
• Homevisitstoparentsofyoungchildren.
• Parentingtraining
• Provisionofgoodqualitychildcare/daycare
• Additionaleducationalsupport
• Programmestoinvolveparentsintheirchildren’seducation.
TheseapproachesareincludedinthreeprogrammesreviewedbyUttingandcolleagues(Uttingetal
2007):
• Nurse-familypartnerships(currentlybeingpilotedintheUK)
• TheIncredibleYears
• PreventativeTreatmentProgramme.
Theseinitiatives,alongwithothersundertheumbrellasofchildcareandafter-schoolactivities,are
describedandassessedinmoredetailbelow.
Nurse-familypartnerships(Uttingetal2007)
Aims: Tohelpfirst-timemothersfromlow-incomebackgroundsachievethebeststartfortheirchildren
bypreventinghealthandparentingproblemsthatcanleadtoanti-socialbehaviour.Theprogramme
aimstoaddressthreemainriskfactors:
• Behaviourwithnegativehealthimpactsbymothersduringpregnancysuchassmoking,drinking
alcoholortakingillegaldrugs
• Childabuseandneglect
• Atroubledmaternallifecourse,includingrelianceonstatebenefitsandunintendedsubsequent
pregnancies.
Thisistobeaccomplishedthroughintensivehomevisitingbynursesduringpregnancyandthefirst
twoyearsofachild’slife.
Impact:Alongitudinalstudyintotheeffectivenessofthisformofinterventionwascarriedoutin
Elmira,asemi-ruralareainNewYorkState(Oldsetal,1986,1997,1998,2003citedbyUttingetal
2007).Participantswererecruitedwhilepregnant(before26weeksgestation)andfollowedupuntil
theirchild’s15thbirthday.Childrenwhosemothershadbeentreatedwiththefullnurse-family
partnershipprogrammehad60percentfewerinstancesofrunningaway,56percentfewerarrests,81
percentfewerconvictionsorviolationsofparoleand56percentfewerparent-reportedbehavioural
problemsfromdrugandalcoholuse.
Cost-benefitanalysis:Thenurse-familypartnershipprogrammeinElmirapaidforitselfincostsavings
bythetimethechildhadreachedtheageoffour,duemainlytothereducedrelianceonwelfareby
themotherandreductionsinthenumberofsubsequentpregnanciesforthoseintheprogramme.
Savingshadexceededthecostoftheprogrammeby4:1bythetimethechildreached15,intermsof
decreasedgovernmentassistance,anddecreasedexpenditureoneducation,healthandotherservices,
andcriminaljusticesystemspending.Also,therewereincreasedtaxrevenuesasmothersweremore
likelytobeinemployment.
TheIncredibleYearsproject
Aims: Basedonextensiveresearch,theIncredibleYearsaimstopromotepositiveparentingand
educationapproachesthatincreasetheabilityofchildrentosolveproblemsandinteractsocially,and
thatlessenaggressivetendencies.Aparent-centredprogrammeforthosewithchildrenaged2-7,it
involves‘videotapemodelling’,inwhichgroupsofparentsviewvideosofchild-adultinteractionsand
strategiesandthendiscusswhattheyhaveseeninthegroupsetting,withthegoalthatlessons
learnedshouldbeusedintheirownparentingexperiences.
Anadditional‘advanced’curriculumoffersparentstheopportunitytoconsidertheiradultrelationships
andproblem-solvingskills,inordertofacilitateapositivefamilyatmosphereinwhichgoodparenting
cantakeplace.Associatedprogrammesforparentsofolderchildrenandteachershavealsobeen
developed.
Staffing:Groupleadersarerecruitedfromvariousfamilyandhealth-relatedfields,suchaseducation,
socialwork,nursing,andpsychology.Mosthavepost-graduatequalifications.Thereisalengthyand
detailedtrainingprocessthatculminatesinaccreditation.
Recruitment: IntheUK,familieshavebeenrecruitedprimarilythroughSureStartcentres.Services
suchastransportandchildcareareoftenprovidedaspartoftheprogramme,inordertofacilitate
attendance.
Impact:Studieshavebeenconductedacrossabroadrangeofdemographicgroups,andhave
identifiedthatthetechniquesareeffectiveinnumerouspopulations,includingdeprivedcommunities
andthosethataredifficulttoaccess.Invariousevaluationsstudies,includingthosecarriedoutby
independentevaluators,theIncredibleYearshasbeenshowntobeaseffectiveastreatmentof
conduct-disorderedchildreninclinicalsettings.
PreventativeTreatmentProgramme(Uttingetal2007)
Aims: AnoffshootofParentManagementTraining(PMT),thisprogrammeparticularlytargetsboys
betweentheagesofsevenandninewhohaveproblemswithaggressionandhyperactivity,andis
designedtofacilitatethereductionofthesesymptomsthroughacombinationofappliedPMTand
anger-managementandsocial-skillstraining.
Recruitment: Intheinitialpilot,subjectswerewhite,Canadian-bornmales,ages7-9,fromfamiliesin
low-levelsocioeconomicgroups,whowereassessedashavinghighlevelsofdisruptivebehaviourin
kindergarten.AfurtherstudywasconductedinMassachusettsforfive-year-oldswhohadbeen
screenedforsymptomsofbehaviouralandemotionalproblems.ImplementationofPTPischallenging
asthehighlevelofcommitmentrequiredbyparentsoftenleadstolowattendance.
Impact:ChildrenwhoparticipatedinthekeyPTPstudieswereshowntohavereducedattention
deficitsandaggression.Thebehaviourofthehighestpercentageofchildren(incontrasttoother
treatmentprogrammes)wasbroughtintothenormalrange.APTPstudyintheUnitedStatescalled
theFastTrackprogrammewasprovidedfor900childrenaged5-6whowereidentifiedasbeinginthe
top10percentforanti-socialbehaviour.Afterthreeyearsofinvolvementintheprogramme
participantswerelesslikelytoshowsignsofseriousconductproblems.Sixyearsafterintervention
childrenthenaged13-14hadlowerratesofarrestthanthecontrolgroup(38percentcomparedwith
42percent)andconductdisorderswerereducedfrom27percentforthecontrolgroupto17per
centintheexperimentgroup.
Childcare:PerryPre-SchoolProgramme
FollowingresearchbyWelshandFarrington(2004)andothers,day-carecentreswithanenriched
programmeforchildreninpre-schoolage,ledbyeducatorstrainedinpsychology,isconsidereda
promisingearlyintervention.Themosteffectiveappearstobethewell-knownPerryPre-School
programmedescribedbyAshcroftetal (2004)andSchweinhart(2004).
Aims: toprovidehigh-qualityearlychildhoodeducationtochildrenfromlow-levelsocioeconomic
backgroundstoaddresstherelationshipbetweenchildhoodpovertyandeducationalfailure.Thistwo-
yearinterventionlastsfor2.5hoursaday,fivedaysaweek,sevenmonthsayear.Itprovidescognitive
stimulation,andteacheschildrentobeactiveandindependentlearners,increasingschoolreadiness
andenhancingacademicperformance.
Impact: Anevaluationbasedontherandomassignmentof123African-Americaninfantstopre-
schoolandnon-pre-schoolgroupsbetween1962and1966demonstratedgreatersubsequentsuccess
forthoseinthetreatmentgrouponeducational,criminologicalandeconomicoutcomes.Intermsof
impactoneducation,65percentoftheparticipantgroupgraduatedfromhighschoolcomparedwith
45percentofthecontrolgroup.Apositiveimpactoncriminalbehaviourwasalsoevident:atage19,
only31percentofparticipantshadbeenarrestedforacrime,comparedwith51percentofthe
controlgroup.Atage27,thetreatmentgrouphadhadhalfasmanyarrestsasthecontrolgroup.
Asustainedpositiveimpactoneconomicprosperitywasalsoapparent.Atage27,themedianannual
incomeforparticipantswasUS$12,000,comparedwith$10,000forthecontrolgroup.Atage40,the
differencewasgreater,withparticipantsearningamedianof$20,800comparedwith$15,300forthe
controlgroup.Relatedtotheseearningdifferentials,homeownershipatage27wasalsohigher
amongtheparticipants:27percentownershipcomparedwith5percentforthecontrolgroup.
Cost-benefitanalysis: Bythetimetheparticipantshadreachedtheageof27,theprogrammehad
providedasavingof$7forevery$1invested.Whenparticipantshadreachedage40,thissavingwas
increasedto$17per$1invested.Thesavingsareduetoreductionsinspendingonwelfareassistance,
specialeducation,criminaljusticeandcoststocrimevictims,andincreasedtaxrevenuesfrom
participants’higherearnings.Themostsignificantsavingcomesfromcriminalcosts,with88percent
ofsavingsattributedtothisarea.Thereisanotablegenderdivisionofsavings:93percentofsavings
emanatefromtheperformanceofmales,whichcanberelatedtotheirexpectedhigherratesof
criminaloffending.
After-schoolactivities
Alargebodyofresearchshowsthatparticipationinextracurricularactivitiespromoteseducational
attainment,includinglowratesofschoolfailureanddropout(MahoneyandCairns1997).
Participationisassociatedwithheightenedschoolengagementandattendance,betteracademic
performanceandinterpersonalcompetence,andhigheraspirationsforthefuture(Barberetal 2001,
Mahoneyetal 2003).
Otherworkalsoshowsthatparticipationinorganisedactivitiesisassociatedwithreducedproblem
behaviouracrossadolescenceandintoyoungadulthood.Recentresearchshowsthatinvolvement
reducesthelikelihoodofdrugandalcoholproblems(GrossmanandTierney1998),aggression,anti-
socialbehaviourandcrime(Mahoney2000),orofbecomingateenageparent(Allenetal 1997).A
studyof695schoolpupilsinCaliforniawhowerefolloweduptoage24suggestedthatthosewho
participatedinextra-curricularactivitieswerelesslikelytooffend,bothbeforeandaftertheschool-
leavingage.However,thiseffectdependedonwhetherthepupil’ssocialnetworkalsoparticipatedin
extra-curricularactivities,andonwhethertheseactivitiesprovidedstructuredactivitiesthatdeveloped
skillsandattachmenttoconventionalvalues(Mahoney2000).
Thesuccessofactivitiesinpreventingoffendingisexplainedbytheopportunitiespresentedtomix
withbetter-behavedpeers,tobementoredbyadultactivityleaders,andthefactthatorganised
activitiesrepresentaconventionalendeavourthatishighlyvalued,challengingandexciting(Larson
2000).Butinadditiontothis,playitselfisvitaltoyouthdevelopment.Bothpurposeandorder,and
democratic,unstructuredplayareessentialtoyouthwell-being(Gill2007).Lackofeitheroneof
thesecanbeseriouslydetrimental.Organisedactivitiescanprovideboth.
Participationinorganisedactivitieshasalsobeenassociatedwithimprovedmentalhealthand
personalskills,including:
• Lowerlevelsofnegativeemotionssuchasdepressedmoodandanxietyduringadolescence
(Barberetal 2001)
• Heightenedmotivationforlearningandself-efficacy(Mahoneyetal 2005)
• Thepromotionofinitiative–whichinvolvestheapplicationofextendedefforttoachievelong-
termgoals(Larson2000,Larsonetal 2005)
• Maintainingorincreasingself-esteemandsenseofidentity(Mahoneyetal 2005).
Someresearchhasalsoshownthatparticipationisrelatedtodevelopingacivic-mindedidentity
(McIntoshetal 2005).Theopportunitiesforsocialrelationshipsandbelongingthatarisefromtaking
partintheseactivitiesarethoughttoimpactonthesepsychosocialprocessestoo.
Analysisofthe1970BritishCohortStudyhasshownthatcertainyouthactivities,suchassporting,
uniformedandchurchactivities,wereassociatedwithpositiveadultoutcomesbyage30,controlling
forotherrelevantfactorsincludingoutcomesuptoage10andsocioeconomicbackground,while
attendanceatyouthclubswasfoundtopredictnegativeadultoutcomes(Feinsteinetal 2005,Margo
etal 2006).
Activitiesthatareeffectiveinimprovingbehaviourincludethose:
• inwhichparticipantsacquirenewskills(suchassport,art,drama,oranyotherskill)
• thatareregularlyattended,ortowhichregularattendanceisanexpectation,suchasfootball
teamsthatholdregularpracticesessions
• inwhichtheparticipantsworktowardsafinalperformanceorgoal
• thataresupervisedbyadults.
Secondarypreventioninitiatives
Programmesaimedatchildrenandteenagerswhoarealreadydisplayingaggressiveorcriminal
behaviourcanoperateatthreelevels:
• Attheindividual,targetedonpsychologicalproblems
• Atthefamilylevel,addressingtherelationshipswithinthefamilyandparenting
• Attheschoolorcommunitylevel,targetingpeerinfluencesorculturalinfluences
Previousworkhasidentifiedseveralprogrammesasbeingparticularlysuccessful:
Multisystemictherapy(MST)
Primarilyusedamongadolescentsagedbetween12and17,MSTisdeliveredviasmallteamsof
expertpractitioners.Itischaracterisedby:
• Aclearfocusonspecificandcurrentproblems(notbackwardslooking)
• Cleartreatmentplansandexpectationsofbehaviourandactivity
• Dailyorweeklyactivityormeetings,withregularprogressreviews
• Dailycontactwiththerapists
• Dedicatedtherapistswhoareavailabledayandnight,sevendaysaweek
• Atypicaltimelimitofthree-to-fivemonths.
PilotstudiesofmultisystemictherapyarenowunderwayintheUK.InNorway,arandomised-control
trialofMST(OgdenandHagen2006)hasillustratedsustainedpositiveresultsfromthisformof
intervention.Thestudyconsistedof75adolescentswithseriousbehaviouralproblems,whohadbeen
referredtothemunicipalchildwelfareservicesinthreedifferentareas.Theywererandomlyassigned
toatreatmentandcontrolgroup.ThetreatmentgroupreceivedMSTforanaverageof24weeks,
whilethecontrolgroupweretreatedwithregularchildwelfareservices.Participantswereassessed
beforetreatmentbeganandtwoyearsaftertheterminationoftreatment.
Impacts: TheresultsoftheNorwaystudydemonstratedpositiveoutcomesforthosereceivingMST.
Thetreatmentgroupscoredsignificantlyloweronmeasuresofbehaviouralproblemsandanti-social
behaviourassessedusingdatareportedbytheindividualsthemselves,theirparentsandtheirteachers.
Thelivingsituationoftreatedindividualswasimproved,withmoreofthosetreatedremainingliving
withtheirfamiliesthanwasthecaseforthecontrolgroup.MSTwasfoundtobeparticularlyeffective
amongboys.
ApreviousevaluationofMSTconductedinMissouriwith176juvenileoffendersshowedsimilarly
positiveresults.Thesituationoftheparticipantswasfollowedupfouryearsafterparticipationinthe
trial.ThosetreatedusingMSThadrecidivismratesof22percent,whileoffenderstreatedwith
individualtherapyhadamuchhigherrateof72percentandthosewhorefusedtreatment87per
cent.ThisclearlyshowsastrongpositiveeffectofMSTonreducingthelevelsofoffending.Afollow-
upinvestigationalmost14yearslatershowedthesustainedeffectsofMST.ThosetreatedwithMST
had54percentfewerarrestsand57percentfewerdaysincustodythanthosetreatedwithindividual
therapy(Borduinetal 1995).
Cost-benefitanalysis: IntheUS,Sheidowandcolleagueshaveinvestigatedthecostbenefitsofusing
MSTincomparisonwiththeusualmethodsoftreatmentforoffenders.Theirresultsshowthatduring
thetreatmentperiodthereisanetcostsavingofUS$1,617peryouthtreatedwithMST.Thiswas
measuredbycomparingtheMedicaidspendingontheyouthsinvolvedinarandomcontrolstudy,
takingintoaccountallnecessarytreatmentcostsintheperiod.Inthe12monthsaftertreatmenthad
finished,afurther$400peryouthwassavedforthosewhohadbeentreatedusingMST,butthis
differencewasnotsignificant.
GiventhemorepositiveresultsshowntoemanatefromMSTitseemsthatthisformoftreatmentis
themosteconomicallyeffective(Sheidowetal 2004).Thecost-benefitanalysisdidnottakeinto
accountfuturecoststhatmaybeincurredduetoreoffending,theratesofwhicharelowerforthose
treatedwithMST.Thus,itislikelythatthecostsavingscouldbeevengreater.
ThePositiveParentingProgramme(‘TripleP’)
Aims: TriplePisaformoffamilytherapythatseekstoenhancefamilyprotectivefactorsandreduce
riskfactorsassociatedwithsevereemotional,developmentalandbehaviouralproblemsinchildren.It
focuseson:
• Augmentingknowledge,skills,andconfidenceofparents
• Promotingpositiverelationships
• Promotingsocial,emotional,intellectualandlanguagedevelopment,andbehaviouralcompetencies
inchildren.
Developingparentalcapacityforself-regulationisacoretenet.
Staffing: StaffingrequirementsreflecttheintensityoftheTriplePintervention.Whereasearlierlevels
canbeimplementedbyhealthorparentingkeyworkers,ofteninassociationwithfamilydoctors,
higherlevelsofinterventionrequiremorehighly-trainedwelfareworkersandalliedhealth
professionals.Practitionersreceivelicencestopractiseaftertheyundergoastandardisedtraining
course.
Recruitment: Theprogrammeisdividedintofivelevels,inanattempttotargetfamilieswitha
spectrumofsupportneeds.Themostbasiclevelincludesauniversal,population-widecampaign,
whereasthemostintenselevel,whichincludeshomevisitsandanindividuallytailoredprogramme,is
targetedtothefamilieswithgreatestneed.
Impact: TriplePhasnotbeenthoroughlytestedinUKsettings,butextensivestudiesinAustraliahave
demonstratedmarkedlypositiveimpact.Theseincludesignificantlyimprovedchildbehaviourand
parentalcompetence.Parentsshowincreasedconfidenceinparentingability,reduceddependencyon
potentiallyabusiveparentingpracticesanddemonstratereducedstressand/ordepressioninrelation
totheirroleasparents.Childrenexperiencefewerproblems,getonbetterwiththeirpeersandbehave
betteratschool.
Functionalfamilytherapy
Functionalfamilytherapy(FFT)isalsoaimedatthefamilycontext.Itcombinesastrongtheoretical
frameworkwithevidence-basedideasandclinicalexperienceandexpertise.Treatmentprogrammes
arehighlyflexibleandresponsivetotheindividual.Skilledtherapistsworkwithfamiliestoimprove
parentingskillsandrelationshipswiththeschoolandcommunity.
Theprogrammeaimsnotonlytoaddressanindividualyoungperson,buttoworkwithotherfamily
memberswhomayalsobeatriskofcrime,forinstanceyoungersiblings.Itisgenerallyusedforthose
betweentheagesof11and18andisshortterm–lastingonaverageeightto12sessionsspread
overthreemonths–butmayincludefollow-upsuchasphonecallsandmeetingsformoreextreme
cases.SeveralevaluationsintheUShaveshownittobemoreeffective(andcost-effective)than
sendingyoungoffenderstoprisonorresidentialtreatment(Aosetal2001).Thestudiesalsosuggest
thatFFTsucceedsinreducingtheoffendingofsiblingsofthetargetedyoungpeopleandoffendingin
adulthood.Forexample,onestudyshowedthat9percentofagroupofyoungpeoplewhowent
throughFFToffendedasadults,comparedwith41percentofamatchedgroupofyoungpeoplewho
wereonlygivenprobation(Gordonetal 1995).
Schoolinterventions
Manyoftheprogrammesthathavebeenusedinschooltoreduceviolenceanddelinquencyhave
failedtoshowpositiveeffects.ButareviewintheUSfoundsevenexamplesofeffectivepracticefor
youngpeoplewhowereatriskofoffending(Molina2005).Theywere:attributionalretraining,social
skillstraining,cognitivebehaviouraltherapy,peercopingskills,andacombinationofchild,parent,
andteachertraining.Theseprogrammessharedafocusondevelopingthesocialandcognitiveskillsof
youngpeople,ratherthansimplyinformingorwarningthemofthedangersofdelinquency.
Therapeuticfostercare
Someyoungpeoplefacesuchsevereproblemsintheirfamilythattheyhavetotakenawayfortheir
ownprotection.Inmanycases,theyareplacedinchildren’shomes.Suchplacementisaknownrisk
factorforfutureoffendingandotherharms(forexample,pooreducationalperformance,drugmisuse,
homelessness).Analternativeisfostercare,orplacementwithfamiliesinthecommunity.An
additionalsupporttotheseplacementscanbeprovidedintheformoftherapeutictrainingand
supporttothefostercarers.
Evaluationsofsuchtherapeuticfostercarehaveshownthatitcanbeeffectiveinreducingtheriskof
youthoffending,especiallyinadolescentswithahistoryofdelinquency(Hahnetal 2004).Thesame
reviewsuggeststhatitisnotparticularlyeffectivewithyoungerchildrenwhoshowsignsofemotional
disturbance.
Incontrasttotheineffectiveinterventionslistedabove,theeffectiveinterventionsdescribedheredo
notstrivetobe‘tough’onyoungpeople.Rather,theyfollowresearch-basedrecommendationsto
focusondynamic,‘criminogenicneeds’(Bonta1997).Criminogenicneedsarethoseattributesof
youngoffendersthatarerelatedtotheiroffending(forexample,impulsivity,lowselfcontrol,poor
educationalperformanceandparentalrelationships,butnotlowself-esteem,whichisnot
criminogenic).Dynamicneedsarethosethatareassociatedwithoffending,andareopentobeing
changed,asopposedtostaticcriminogenicfactors,suchasageorgender(AndrewsandBonta2003,
LaytonMacKenzie2006).
Theseapproachesprovideyoungpeoplewithaconsistentframework,withclearrulesand
expectations(butnotharshpunishments)inwaysthathelpthemtoresolvetheproblemsthat
underlietheiroffending.
Thedifferencesineffectsbetweenyoungerandolderchildrenfortherapeuticfostercaredraw
attentiontothepossibilityofdifferenteffectsfordifferentgroupsofyoungpeople.Differencesin
age,gender,needandethnicitymayaffecttheeffectivenessofinterventions,sodifferentialeffects
shouldbecarefullyreviewedwhendecidingoninterventionstoimplementintheUKcontext.
Thesefindingshaveclearimplicationsforgovernmentpolicy:punitivemeasuresaresimplyfarless
effectiveatpreventingyouthoffendingthanaretherapeuticandfamily-basedinitiatives.
However,thereisonereasonwhytheUKgovernmenthasbeenreluctanttoemphasisetherapeutic
interventionsoverthemorepunitiveASBOlegislation:publicattitudes.TheGovernmenthastended
tobelievethatthepublicdemandsmoreserious,punitivemeasures–or,conversely,thattheywould
viewamoreinterventionistagendaasnanny-statism.However,thisclaimneedstobeupdated.Aswe
sawinSection2,publicattitudesare,infact,notasstraightforwardlypejorativeasoftenclaimed.
Sowhataretheimplicationsofthoseresearchfindingsforpolicy?Publicattitudestowardscrimeare
notimmutablyauthoritarian.Peopleinterpretthebehaviourofyoungpeopleinpublicspacesas
signifyingthestrengthofthesocialorder,butthisbehaviouritselfisclearlyamenabletopolicy
intervention.Theyalsodiscriminatebetweentypesofcrimeandthevaluesandintereststhatthese
breach,andaccountforthemotivations,intentionsandmoralpostureofoffendersinparticularby
recognisingthat‘drugaddictsdonotbehaverationally’.Theybecomemoreliberalintheirorientations
whensuppliedwithinformationfromprofessionalsratherthanthemedia,andwhentheyhave
personalinvolvementincaseresolutioninthecriminaljusticesystems.Buttheystandfirmonbasic
socialnormsandreactharshlytohigh-profileandwhattheyperceiveasrepugnantbreachesofthose
norms.
Aprogressivepolicyagendaforcrimereductioncanthereforefindmooringsinpublicattitudes,even
thoughthetaskisadifficultandcomplexone.Opportunitiestoshapeaprogressiveconsensuson
youthoffending,andtoleadpublicattitudesinnewdirections,clearlyexistinanumberofvery
specificareas.Forexample,thepublicsupportstheideaofintroducingmoredisciplinetoyoung
people’slives,andsuchsentimentsgowiththegrainofresearchfindings.Asthisreporthas
demonstrated,youngpeoplewhoexperiencestructure,disciplineandhierarchyintheirsocialand
familylivesaremuchlesslikelytobecomeanti-socialyoungadultsandtosubsequentlyoffend,and
lackofdisciplineinearlyandmidchildhoodisstronglypredictiveofanti-socialbehaviourinchildhood
andadolescenceandoffendinginadulthood(Margoetal 2006).
Thereisalsoastrongsensethatchildrendeserveafairchance.Peopleregularlycomplainthatthereis
notenoughforchildrentodointheirlocalarea,andworryaboutthecapacityofschoolsandother
children’sservicestodotheirbestbytheyoungergeneration(ibid).Thecurrentyouthjusticesystem
doeschimewiththemorepunitivesideofpublicattitudes,buttodismisstheother,moreprogressive
side,wouldbedisingenuous.
Politicianshaveachoiceabouthowtheypresentpoliciesandagendastothepublic.Academicssuch
asGeorgeLakoffandIanShapirohaveillustratedthecapacityofpoliticianstoframepolicyideasin
waysthatcanbe‘sold’toascepticalpublic(Lewis2007).Inthisregard,reformstoextendthe
provisionofstructuredactivitiesandsupervisedpublicspaceforyoungpeople,andtotackleissuesof
pooryouthsocialisationviafamily-basedinterventions,offerpotentiallyfertilegroundforchanging
thepublicdiscourseonyouthcrimeintheUK.
8.Recommendations
AccordingtotheYouthJusticeBoard,intheUKwespend11timesmoreonlockingupouryoung
peopleaswedoonpreventionprojectstostopthemgettinginvolvedincrimeinthefirstplace.
Rectifyingthisanomalyiskeytoaprogressiveagendaonyouthcrime.
ThenewgovernmentunderGordonBrownhasalreadyindicateditsintentiontomovewellbeyonda
punitiveagendaonyouthoffendingtoonethatbetterreflectstheaimsofEveryChildMattersand
YouthMatters.MovingtheRespectunitandresponsibilityforyouthoffendingfromtheHomeOffice
tothenewDepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilieswasasignificantsteptowardsthis,aswas
theChildren’sPlan(DCSF2007)andtheongoingYouthOffendingProject(PMSU/HomeOffice).
Yettheemphasisofourcrimepreventionstrategyisstillfirmlyinthe‘justice’camp,andwestilllacka
coordinated,properlytargetedbutnationalserviceforchildrenatriskofcrime–particularlyforthose
ofprimaryschoolage.Meanwhile,provisionofappropriatesocialisingactivitiesforteenagersispoor
inmanydisadvantagedareas.Inaddition,anumberofgapsincurrentprovisionemergewhenitis
examinedinthecontextoftheaboveresearchfindings.Thismustberectifiedaspartofaholistic
primarypreventionstrategytopreventyouthcrime.
Furthermore,updatingandimprovingtheinfrastructureandlegislationaroundanti-socialbehaviour
andpreventionwouldbethelogicalsteptobetterreflectingtheevidenceonhowbesttoprevent
offending.
Theneedforanewapproach
Amorebalancedpublic-policyresponsetoconcernsaboutyouthoffendingdoesnotmeanignoring
behaviourthatcontravenessocialnorms–farfromit.Butitdoesmeanviewingoffendingandanti-
socialbehaviourdifferently–asbehaviourthatneedstobereformedanddealtwithmeaningfullyand
incontext:notmerelypunishedintheshorttermandthenforgottenabout.
Theresearchconsideredinthisreportsuggestsseveralproblemswiththecurrentapproachto
preventingoffending.Oneofthemostimportantproblemsisthelevelatwhichweintervene.While
targetingisessential,thereisnotenoughbeingdoneattheprimaryleveltotacklethebroadercauses
ofoffending.However,therecommendationsbelowarenecessarilyincomplete:theyaimtoimprove
theopportunitiesandsupportsavailabletotheprimarysocialisinginstitutionsoffamily,community,
school.Butultimately,muchofwhatneedstohappenrestsonpublicbehaviour–andthecapacityfor
legislationtochangethisislimited.
Norshouldwealwayslooktolegislationorprofessionalstosolveproblemsthatmayresultfromsocial
change.Forexample,thesolutiontofamiliesspendinglesstimetogetherthanseveraldecadesagois
notto‘replace’parentingwithprofessionalchildcareandsoon:manypolicyleversareavailableto
helpparentsspendmoretimewithchildrenwithoutlosingoutontheopportunitiesofworkand
leisureinmodernBritain.(SeeHughesandCook2007,DixonandMargo2006andMargoetal 2006
formoredetail.)
Onceanindividualisdisplayingriskfactors,orhascommittedananti-socialact,thenatureofthe
interventionneedstobedirectedatpreventingthatbehaviourfrombeingrepeated,ratherthanon
emptypunishments.Punishmentisanimportantcomponentofourcriminaljusticesystem,but
effectivelydivertingyoungpeoplefromcrimeisjustasimportant.Ordersandsanctionsmustalways
beaccompaniedbyaformoftherapeuticorpurposefulactivityiftheyaretobeeffectiveatcrime
prevention.Thiswillalsosendthemessagetothepublicthatthebehaviourisbeingdealtwithina
meaningfulway.
Strengtheningoursecondary-levelinterventionsisvitalforanotherreasontoo:thisreporthasnot
consideredinanydetailtheproblemofcrimecommittedbynewcomerswhowouldnothavebeen
abletoaccesstheprimarysocialisinginstitutionsweexaminesimplybecausetheywerenotlivingin
theUKpreviously.Whilethesolutiontotheproblemsfacedbytheseindividualsneedstobelookedat
aspartofanotherindependentstudy,theprimesolutionwillbetolookatstrengtheningthe
programmesofferedatthesecondary,laterinterventionstageandensuringlaterinterventionsare
moreeffective.
Therecommendationsbelowaredividedintoprimaryandsecondaryformsofprevention.
Primaryprevention
1.Tacklingchildpovertyandin-workpoverty
Theconnectionbetweenpovertyandcriminalityremindsusagainoftheimportanceoftacklingchild
poverty.Recommendationsonhowthisagendashouldmoveforward,particularlyintermsoftackling
in-workpoverty,areadvancedinotherworkbyippr(seeCookeandLawton2007).Theseinclude:
• Reformstotheminimumwage
• Improvementstoworkincentives–throughapersonalTaxCreditAllowance
• Renewingtrustinthetax-creditsystemthrougha‘noclaw-backs’rule,andbywritingoff
overpaymentstolow-incomefamilies
• Increasingsupporttolow-incomeworkingfamilies.
2.Bettersupportforfamilies:towardsaworker/carermodel
Keytorespondinginaprogressivewaytosocialchangewillbestrategiestobettersupportfamiliesto
spendtimewithchildrenandteenagers.Toooften,thereisadiscerniblyfatalisticapproachtosocial
change–asensethatwewillneverreturntothe1950s‘goldenage’ofnuclearfamiliesandstay-at-
homemothers.Thisnotionistrue,andasitshouldbe.
Butwearecertainlynotheadingintomoralandsocialdecline.Thereareahugenumberofreforms
andpoliciesthatcanhelpusmoveasasocietytowardsanothergoldenage–ofthe‘worker/carer’
society.Thisdoesnotmean‘professionalising-out’childhood,assomehaveclaimed–weshouldnot
aimtoreplaceparentingwithprofessionalchildcareservicesandlooktoprogrammesandservicesto
repairthejobofpoorparenting.Whatitdoesmeanisfindingwaystoprovidetherightbalanceof
supportandservicetofamiliessothattheyinturnmaybalancetheirworkingandcaring
responsibilitiesmoreeffectively.
Therangeofreformstosupportbetterwork-lifebalanceforparentsandfamiliespreviouslyidentified
byippr(seeHughesandCooke2007,DixonandMargo2006andStanley2005)shouldbeacted
upon.Theseinclude:
• Betterchildcareprovision
• Bettersupportfor,andgreateravailabilityof,flexibleworkingforparentsofolderchildren
• Betterparentalleavepackages–particularly,betterpaternityleavetoensurethatfathersare
abletoundertakepropercaringrolesinfamilies.
Theseissueshavebeencoveredthoroughlyelsewherebyippr.Therecommendationsbelowfocus
onareasinwhichnewinitiativesareneeded.
3.Protectingchildren:banningcorporalpunishment
TheGovernmenthaspreviouslyruledoutmovingfurthertowardsthebanningofphysicalpunishment
byparents.Butitshouldreconsideritspositioninlightoftheevidencepresentedinthisreport,as
wellasformoralreasons.Theevidencefrommorethan40yearsofresearchisthathittingchildren
increasesthechancesofaggression,anti-socialandcriminalbehaviour.Recentstudieshave
demonstratedbeyonddoubtthecausalrelationshipbetweenphysicalpunishmentandincreased
aggressivebehaviour(Lyons2000).
Parentsshouldbebannedfromanyformofphysicalpunishmentofchildren.Thiswouldnotonly
reducecriminalityinthelongterm,butwouldalsosendouttherightmessageaboutthekindof
societywewanttobe–oneinwhichviolenceandphysicalabusearenottolerated–andalsosends
themessagetochildrenthattheywillbetreatedasweexpectthemtotreatothers,andthatthelaw
istheretoprotectthemaswellastoenforcenormsofbehaviour.
4.Betterprovisionofactivitiesfor12-to18-year-olds
Involvementinextra-curricularactivitiescanprotectagainstoffending,butinthepast
disadvantagedyoungpeoplehavebeenlesslikelythantheirmoreadvantagedcounterpartsto
accessstructuredactivities.Cohortanalysisshowsthatyoungpeoplefromdisadvantaged
backgrounds,orwhohadhighriskfactorsforpoorattainmentlaterinlife,weremuchmorelikely
toattendunstructuredactivitiessuchasyouthclubs(Feinsteinetal 2005,Stattinetal 2005),
andmuchlesslikelytoattendstructuredactivities.Thisislikelytobepartlyduetothe
availabilityofsuchactivitiesindisadvantagedareas.
Additionalbackground
Thereareconcernsthatprovisionatanationallevelistoolowtomeetdemand.Nationally,there
arearound950,000placesavailableintheGirlGuidesandScouts.TotaketheGirlGuidegroups
asanexample,although14percentofsix-year-oldsattendRainbows,25percentofeight-year-
oldsattendBrowniesand10percentof11-year-oldsattendGuides,therearestill50,000girls
onthenationalwaitinglist–oneforeverytenexistingmembers.However,althoughthereis
currentlynosocioeconomicbreakdownofthesefigures,anecdotalevidencesuggestsitis
overwhelminglythemostaffluentyoungpeoplewhoaretakinguptheseplaces,whichis
unsurprisingconsideringtheearlierfindingsfromcohortanalysis.
TheCadetsisanorganisationthatisoftenassociatedwithnegativeaspectsofmilitarismand
hierarchy,butitalsooffersyoungpeopleimportantdevelopmentalactivitiesandexperiences,
suchascamping,buildingandmakingstructures,learningnewskills,andworkingwithadult
mentors.However,thereareonly88,000cadetsaltogetherintheSeaCadetCorps,ArmyCadet
ForceandtheAirTrainingCorps,inaround3,000unitsbasedwithinlocalcommunities.
Inaddition,thereare40,000childrenintheCombinedCadetForce(CCF).Thisisbasedin
schools,butofthe253CCFunitsonly52areinstateschools(althoughtheGovernmentis
pilotingprovisioninfivemorestateschools,andislookingtopilotaprojectinaScottishschool
soon).Sothevastmajorityofthe£80million-a-yearMinistryofDefencefundingfortheCCF
goestofundingprovisionforyoungpeopleinindependentschools,whotendoverwhelminglyto
bebetteroffthanotheryoungpeopleandtosufferfarfewerriskfactorsthanotheryoung
people.ThislevelofexpenditureisequaltomorethanhalfofwhatisspentontheChildren’s
Fundeachyear(Hansard2007),highlightingadisjunctbetweenthedesiretoprovideactivities
forthemostdisadvantagedandtherealityofprovision.
AlookattheschoolschosenfortheCCFpilotprojectsetupbytheMinistryorDefencein2007
suggeststhatthepilotshavenottargetedprovisionatthemost-at-riskyoungpeople.The
percentageofpupilsreceivingfreeschoolmealsisagoodindicationofthelevelofdisadvantage
inaschool.Table8.1listspercentagesoffreeschoolmealsintheschoolschosenforpilotCCF
projects.
Table8.1:SchoolschosenforpilotCCFprojects
School Pupilsreceivingfreeschoolmeals
ArchersCourtSpecialistMathsandComputingCollege,Dover 25%
BudmouthTechnologyCollege,Weymouth 22%
Deacon’sSchool—SpecialistTechnologyCollege,Peterborough 22.8%
Haberdashers’Aske’sFederationofHatchamCollegeandKnightsAcademy,London 18%
TreorchyComprehensiveSchool,Treorchy,MidGlamorgan 21%
UKaverage 21%
Note:StatisticsaccurateasofMay2007.Source:Ofsted–variousreports
Itisimmediatelyapparentthattheseselectedschoolsareaboutaverageintermsofthe
socioeconomicbackgroundoftheirstudents,whilethelevelinareassuchasthedeprived
LondonboroughofTowerHamletsis53.9cent.Reachingthemostdisadvantagedandat-risk
youngpeoplewouldclearlyrequiretargetingthoseschoolswiththehighestnumberofpupilson
freeschoolmealsfirst.
Intermsofprovisionincommunities,under-provisionindeprivedareasmaybeparticularlymarked.
Asanindicationofprovision,weinvestigatedthenumberofScoutsandArmyCadetsorganisations
inareasofparticulardeprivation.Aston,inBirmingham,hasonlyoneScoutbrigade,with20
members,andonecadetunitwith26cadets–inanareawithanoverallpopulationofalmost
27,000(including5,8195-to16-year-olds).Possilpark,Glasgow,similarlyhasnoscoutsbrigades
andonlytwocadetunits,with30cadetseach,despitehavinganoverallpopulationof5,300.
Inmanywaysthisunder-provisionisunsurprising,astheseorganisationsdependonthewillingness
ofadultstocomeforwardasvolunteers.Thisitselfwillberelatedtolevelsofcollectiveefficacyin
thecommunity,whichtendtobelowerindisadvantagedareas(Margoetal 2007).Thisis
unfortunatebecauseitisthechildrenlivingintheseareasforwhomparticipationinpurposeful
activitiesissoimportant.
Policyrecommendations
Extra-curricularactivitiesforallyoungpeopleshouldbeprovidedineverylocalarea,withfunding
sourcesforstructuredextra-curricularactivitiesconsolidatedintoonefund.Moreover,whilethe
CombinedCadetForcesisfarfromtheonlyorganisationofferingpurposefulactivitiestoyoung
people,itismorallywrongthatthemajorityoflimitedresourcecurrentlygoestomoreadvantaged
youngpeople.The£80millionthattheMinistryofDefencespendseachyearontheCombined
CadetForces,mainlyinindependentschools,shouldeitherbedivertedtofundingCCFunitsin
schoolsindeprivedareas,orcontinuetofundonlythoseCCFunitsinindependentschoolsthat
attractaminimumamountofattendance(say50percent)bychildrenatstateschoolsindeprived
areas.
Providersofstructuredextra-curricularactivitiesindeprivedareasshouldbeabletoapplytothis
consolidatedfundinordertoimproveandincreaseprovisionintheseareas.Butinordertohavean
impactonoutcomes,theseactivitieswouldneedtohavethecharacteristicsthatweknoware
importantinimprovingemotionalandsocialdevelopmentinyoungpeople.Inotherwords,they
needtobepurposeful,withopportunitiesforprogressionandtotakeonmoreresponsibility,
provideconsistencyandberegularlyattended.
Theevidencecitedwithinthisreportisthatchildrendevelopmorallyandsociallyviaengagementin
democraticallystructuredplayandactivity,buttheyalsoneedopportunitiestoprogress,andto
understandandengageinpurposefulactivitiesthatencourageprogression.Activitieswould
thereforeneedtobeaccreditedasfulfillingaminimumnumberofsetcriteria.
Activitiesthatshouldbeencouragedinclude:
• Sportingactivitiessuchasfootballclubs
• Artanddrama-basedactivitiesthatincludea‘finalshow’orperformance(sothattheyaregoal-
orientated)
• GirlguidingUK,ScoutAssociation,cadetgroupsandWoodcraftFolk(asthesearegoalorientated
andprovideskills-basedlearningopportunities)
• Otherdemocraticallystructuredbutpurposefulactivities.
5.Supervisedplayareasforchildren(under-12s)
Provisionofpurposefulactivitiesisimportant,butsoisplay,asthisreporthasnotedatseveral
points,sooutdoorspacesmustbeprovidedforprimaryschoolagedchildrentoplayfreelyand
safelywithfriends.
ResearchshowsthatintheUK16percentofhouseholdsareinpoor-qualityenvironments(PMSU/
DCSF2007).Manyareas–particularlythemostdisadvantaged–sufferfromtrafficproblemsand
dangerousroads,andadultsintheUKarelesswillingtosuperviseotherpeople’schildreninthelocal
area(Margoetal 2006).Inaddition,therearefewerthan100staffedadventureplaygroundsinthe
UK,andlocalbudgetsforplayservicesarelowornon-existent(PMSU/DCSF2007).
Thecombinationofthesetrendshasbeenthatyoungpeoplespendlesstimeplayinginsupervised
areasthanelsewhereinEurope(Gill2007).Meanwhile,75percentofparentsbelievethattheir
childrennowfaceincreasedrisksandarereluctanttoallowthemtoplayunsupervisedoutside(Gill
2007).
Additionally,asTable4.2shows,thereisacorrelationbetweenoffendingbehaviourandcomplaintsof
littletodointhelocalarea.Youngpeopleneedmoreopportunitiestoengagepositivelyinsupervised
activitiesthatarepurposefulandfuninthelocalarea.Doingsonotonlyincreasestheirsocial,
emotionalandbehaviouralskills,butgivesthemasenseofownershipoverthelocalarea,andteaches
themtoengagepositivelywithpublicspace–forexample,respectingpublicpropertyandtherights
ofothers(Gill2007,Margoetal 2006).Meanwhile,theincreasedvisibilityofyoungpeopleplaying
andinteractingpositivelyisthoughttohelpsoothepublicconcernsaboutyouthbehaviour(ibid)and
tohelpgeneratemorecollectiveefficacyandpositiverelationshipsbetweenyoungpeopleandthe
adultsaroundthem.
Recommendations
Theaimshouldbeforthesesupervisedplayareastobeofferedineverylocalarea.Butinthefirst
instance,theyshouldbetargetedatdisadvantagedurbanareaswhereneedisgreatestandwhere
thereisnotalreadyactivevoluntary-sectororlocal-areaprovision.Researchshowsthatchildrenand
youngpeopleconsistentlycomplainabouthavinglittletodointheirlocalarea(Margoetal 2006),
andthatthepublicwouldsupportsuchmeasures(Gill2007).
AssetoutintheChildren’sPlan,theGovernmentshouldinvestinanewprogrammeofsupervised
playareasindisadvantagedurbanareas.Thesewouldbestaffedadventureplayparks,integratedwith
structuredactivity(forexample,inparksoutsideChildren’sCentresandtheproposednewprogramme
ofyouthcentres[knownasYouthHubs])andwouldrequirethefollowingsteps:
• Rollingouta‘PlayRanger’programme,startingindisadvantagedareas
• IntegratingsecureplaysitesintoYouthHubdesignandplanning
• Staffingadventureplaygroundsindisadvantagedareas
• Settingupaworkforcedevelopmentprogrammefortheplaysector,withrecruitmentfocusedon
localadults
• Providingsubsidisedaccesstoindoorplayareasforyoungpeoplefromdisadvantagedbackgrounds.
Inordertoensurethatchildrencanplaysafelyoutsideininner-cityareas,furtherplansshouldbe
madetotackletrafficsafetyissuesinurbanareasandtoensurethattown-planningdecisionsare
madewithchildrenandyoungpeopleinmind.
6.Supportingcollectiveefficacy
Whilethepreviousrecommendationisimportantinlayingthefoundationsformorepositive
interactionbetweenadultsandchildren,furtherchallengesremaininsupportingcommunitiesto
developcollectiveefficacy.Thisinvolvesencouragingadultsinthelocalcommunitytocometogether
todecideonnormsofbehaviour,andtobewillingtoenforcethem.
Researchconsistentlyshowsthattheroleofthewidercommunityandotheradultsinsocialising
youngpeopleisvitaltotheirbehaviourandwell-being.Therehasbeenarangeofrecentipprresearch
inthisarea(Rogers2005,Dixonetal 2006,Keaney2006,KeaneyandRogers2006,KhanandMuir
2006).Thesereportsallagreethatwhereadultsarewillingandabletoactivelyparticipatein
maintainingorderandacceptablebehaviourintheircommunities,children’sbehaviourbenefits
hugely.Parentingisalsoimprovedwhenlocalnetworksofparentscanagreeonwhatbehavioursare
acceptable,asshowninMargoetal 2006,andresearchersbelievethistobeduetotheconfidence
thatindividualparentscangainfromthesupportofotheradultsinthecommunityandthewayin
whichyoungpeoplethenperceivemessagesfromanoldergeneration–asbeingmessages,rather
thanunreasonableexpectationsoftheirownparents.
Buttheroleofpolicyinenablingthedevelopmentofcollectiveefficacyisacomplexone.Hereagain,
itisclearthatpolicycannotsimplyforcelocalculturetochange,butcanonlyfacilitateit.
Recommendations
First,inlinewiththefindingsreportedherethatcollectiveefficacyflourisheswhenpublicspaceis
well-maintained,thereareseveralwaysinwhichchangescouldbemadetoplanningandregulation
policywhichwouldhelptosupportarichervarietyofpublicspacesandplaceswherepeoplecan
meet.Themostimportantideasincludethefollowing:
• Localauthoritiesshouldconductregularauditsof‘congregationalspaces’ineachneighbourhood,
todeterminehowmuchsuchspaceisavailableandwhatconditionitisin.Thisinformationcould
thenbeusedtoinformplanningdecisionsorpublic-spendingdecisions.
• TheCommissionforArchitectureandtheBuiltEnvironment(CABE)shouldawardandmonitoran
‘InvestorinCommunity’badgetoencouragecommercialdeveloperstopursuedesignpoliciesthat
fullyreflecttheprinciplesofsustainabledevelopment,byintegratingeconomic,socialand
environmentalfactorsindesignandimplementation.Publicprocurementofnewhomesandother
dwellingsshouldexcludeanydevelopersthatdonotachievethisstandard.
• Betterstrategiesforinvolvinglocalpeopleinplanningthedevelopmentanduseofsharedspace
shouldsupporttheaboverecommendations.
• Toencouragethedevelopmentoflocalactivitiesthatarecollectiveandparticipative,government
shouldintroducetargets.Tothisend,thereshouldaPublicServiceAgreementtargettoencourage
collectiveandcommunity-ledculturalactivities–particularlyamongthosefromprioritygroupsand
indisadvantagedcommunities,andthosethatencouragethemixingofdifferentagegroups.This
wouldsupportandbuildonippr’srecommendationsinKeaney(2006)toencouragecivilrenewal.
• Morecrimepreventionmoneyshouldbedirectedtowards‘positive’measuresthatdefendpublic
space,bydesigningthebuiltenvironmenttoencourageconstantuse,ratherthanthe‘defensive’
strategiesthatarecurrentlydominant,suchasCCTV,whichdolittletomakecrimeharderto
commit.Initiativestargeting,say,designorlightinginthepublicrealmcouldactivelyencourage
moreuseofpublicspace,thusnaturallyprovidingmore‘eyesonthestreet’.CABEshouldworkwith
localauthorities,NACROandtheHomeOfficetoresearchanddevelopsuchastrategy.
• LocalauthoritiesarechargedwithdrawingupCommunityPlanspromotingthelong-termwelfareof
theirareas.Theprocessshouldincludethecreationof‘publicrealmstrategies’asrecommendedby
theUrbanTaskForce,basedongenuineconsultationwithresidents,withplanslookingupto20
yearsahead.Thequalityofpublicspace–thestreetscape,parks,greenspaces–shouldbefocused
uponbyLocalStrategicPartnershipssetuptooverseetheprocessofneighbourhoodrenewalin
disadvantagedlocalities.
Second,weproposethefollowingrecommendationsdesignedtoincreaselocalengagementand
involvementinbehaviourandcrime:
• TheRespectActionPlansetsoutarangeofmeasuresdesignedtoimprovelocalaccountabilityand
bringserviceprovidersclosertotheprioritiesofpeopleintheirlocalcommunities.Senior
representativesofpoliceandlocalauthoritiesshouldholdregular‘facethepublic’sessions,which
couldbeopentothemedia.ThesesessionsshouldbeexpandedtomirrorthemodelofSafer
CommunityCouncilsdevelopedinNewZealand.Inthese,parents,localauthorityrepresentatives,
teachersfromlocalschools,representativesofyoungpeople’sgroups,localwomen’sgroups,local
businessandchurchgroupsmeetregularlywiththelocalpolicetodebatecommunityissues.
• TheNewZealandSaferCommunityCouncilsarenotonlychargedwiththeresponsibilityoftackling
anti-socialbehaviourandcrimeissuesintheirlocalareas,inpartnershipwithlocalpolice,butare
empoweredtoaskforlocalcrimestatistics,tobepreparedbypoliceandpresentedatmeetings.
Thecouncilsdonotthemselveshaveanypowerstotacklechallengingbehaviourbutareable,
throughregularmeetings,toinformthepoliceoflocalconcernsandmonitortheprogressofefforts
totacklethem.TheUKshouldfollowthismodel.
• Therearefurtherexamplesofinner-cityLondonschools(suchasCamdenSchoolforGirls)taking
theinitiativeinsettingupparentgroups,whichmeetregularlytodiscussandagreeonacceptable
behavioursforstudents.Thereisalackofevidenceoftheeffectivenessofsuchschemes,sowe
recommendinvestinginaseriesofpilotschemestotestthevalueoftheseandotherinitiatives.
FurtherinformationonthisrecommendationisinSodhaandMargo(2008forthcoming).
7.Placingwelfareteamsinprimaryschools
Appropriatesupportshouldbemadeavailableforallprimaryschoolagedchildrenandtheirfamilies–
particularlythosemostatrisk.ThesystemofwelfaresupportinEnglishandWelshschoolsis
insufficientlyfocusedonearlyintervention,andthestatutoryframeworkonlykicksinwhenchildren
begintomissschool–bywhichtimeitismoredifficulttore-engagethemwiththeireducation.There
isnotenoughcoordinationbetweenschoolsandsocialservicestopickuponproblemswhenthey
occuratanearlystage.
AsrecommendedinSodhaandMargo(forthcoming),localauthoritiesshouldemploywelfareteams
comprisedofatleastonechildpsychologist,achildpsychiatrist,afamilyworker,acounselloranda
schoolnursetoundertakeschoolsvisits.Theseteamsshouldbehiredbythelocalauthoritybutbe
basedinschools.AsimilarapproachinAlbertaProvince,Canada,suggeststhatoneteamshould
servicenomorethanthreeschoolsinalocalarea,onarotatingcycle,tomeetwithchildrenand
monitortheirwelfare.Theseteamsshouldbemadeavailabletoallchildren,andshouldmeetwith
eachchildatleastonceayear.Theyshouldbetaskedwithreferringchildrenandtheirfamiliesto
appropriatesupportservices(suchasSureStartprogrammes,OnTrack,Connexions,SocialServicesor
childandadolescentmentalhealthservices[CAMHS]),andwouldreplacethecurrentroleofschool
welfareofficer.
ThissystemwouldhelptosolvetheproblemofSureStartreachingthosemostinneed–thisis
importantasevaluationsofSureStarthavefoundthatserviceswerenotbeingaccessedbythemost-
at-riskfamilies.Itwouldalsoensurethatchildrenwerereachedbyproperprofessionalsupportbefore
theybegantodisplayseriousproblems.Afurtherbenefitwouldbeinensuringmorejoined-up
workingbetweendifferentchildren’sservices.SeeSodhaandMargo(forthcoming)fordetails.
Initially,theteamsshouldbetargetedatschoolsindeprivedinner-cityareaswhereyouthcrimeis
mostoftenperpetrated.However,thelong-termaimshouldbetorollthemoutnationally,tobetter
balancetheeducationalroleofschoolswiththeirpastoralresponsibilities.
Secondaryprevention
8.SureStartPlus:Atargetedapproachforat-risk5-12s
Akeygapincurrentprovisionforpreventingcrimeisthatpreventativeinterventionstendtobe
focusedontheearlyyears–forexample,SureStartisaimedatchildrenaged2-5.Interventions
aimedataddressingemotionalwell-beingandanti-socialbehaviourbychildrenandteenagersare
targeted(throughCAMHSprovision)atthosewhoarealreadyoffendingorcausinganti-social
behaviour,orhaveexperiencedmentalhealthproblems.Thisistoolate:weneedarangeof
interventionsforthe5-12agegroupthatpreventemotionalandbehaviouralproblemsoccurringin
thefirstplace.AreportbyUttingetal (2007)recognisesthatidentifyingandsupportingat-risk
childrenatanearlierstagebeforeproblemssurfacerepresentsakeypolicychallengeforthefuture.
TheChildren’sFund,setupin2000,aimstoreducethesocialexclusionofyoungpeopleandis
targetedatchildrenaged5-13.Itprovidesfundingin149partnershipareasacrosstheUKfor
interventionsdesignedtoimproveoutcomes.Thesemostlytaketheformoflocal‘club-based’
provision,includingbreakfastclubs,after-schoolclubsandhomeworkclubs.Otherservicesinclude
playareas,educationalsupport,childtherapy,mentoringschemesandparent-focusedinterventions.
AswithSureStart,theprimarymethodoftargetingusedisgeographical,withservicesbeingfocused
onthemostdeprivedareasaccordingtotheIndexofMultipleDeprivation.
Buttherestillremainsalackofjoined-upservices–particularlyforprimaryschoolagechildren.
Investmentinactivitiesforyoungpeople,suchasthroughYouthMatters,hasnotbeendirectedatthe
mosteffectiveactivitiesforpreventingbehaviouralproblems;ithasfocusedoverwhelminglyonyouth-
clubprovisionandsocialwork,butnotenoughonconstructiveactivitiesforthemostdisadvantaged
(Margoetal 2006)–althoughthisischanging(HMTreasury2007).
Recommendations
Thereisaclearneedforacoordinated,properlytargetedbutnationalserviceforchildrenatriskof
crime,particularlyforthoseofprimaryschoolage,thattacklesfactorswithinfamiliesand
communitiesthatcanleadtoyouthcrime.Thispublicserviceshouldbeintroducedinlinewith
previousipprrecommendations–particularlytheideabehind‘SureFutures’,recommendedby
EdwardsandHatch(2003)–aservicedesignedtoaddresstheneedsofolderchildrenandteenagers.
ThereiscurrentlyapilotofSureStartPlusforteenageparentsandtheirchildren;thisschemeshould
beradicallyextended.Eventually,theaimshouldbeforSureStart-styleservicestobeavailabletoall
agegroups.WhileSureStartPlusshouldserve5-12sandtheirfamilies,aSureFuturesshouldoffer
thekindsofcareerguidance,activitiesandadvicethatteenagersandtheirfamiliesneed.
ViaSureStartPlus,interventionstoaddressimpulsivenessthatleadstocriminalactivitycanbe
addressedthroughcognitivebehaviourtherapywhileotherriskfactors,suchaslowschoolattainment,
requiremoreestablishedbutnonethelessintensiveinterventions(suchasReadingRecovery,anearly
literacyinterventionprogrammeforchildrenattheendofthefirstyearofprimaryschool).Holistic
programmes,suchasmultisystemictherapy,areofprovenefficacyforthosewiththemostcomplex
needs,whiletargetedparentingprogrammesofthekindreviewedherehavebeenshowntoimprove
outcomes.
Thelong-termaimshouldbetodrawthesemulti-agencyinterventionstogetherundertherubricof
‘children’sservices’intoacoherentservicethatreachesthosechildrenwhoareatriskofprolific
offendingfromagesfiveto12.WeproposethatthiswouldbeintheformofaSureStartPlus
programme,directedatkeepingyoungchildrenoutofcrime,thatwouldtargetolderchildrennot
servedbySureStart.Ultimately,thisshouldbedevelopedandimplementedinabroader,more
inclusivewayinordertoreachallparents,followingaprimary,notsecondary,approach,althoughthis
woulddependonresourceavailability.
Evidencesuggeststhatsuchaninterventionwouldreceivewidespreadsupport.Itwouldalsohelp
shiftmoreoftheresourcesspentonyoungpeopletowardsthoselivinginconditionsofdisadvantage
indeprivedareas.
Althoughprovisionandservicesofferedshouldberesponsivetolocalneed,SureStartPlusshould
offerthefollowingtypesofinterventionthatarealreadyofferedinsomepartsofthecountry,across
thenation:
• Cognitivebehaviouraltherapytoaddressimpulsivenessandotherpersonalitytraitsthatleadto
criminalactivity
• Multisystemictherapyforthosewiththemostcomplexneeds
• Intensiveeducationinterventions,suchasReadingRecovery,forthosewithpoorliteracy
attainment
• Targetedparentingprogrammesofthekindreviewedhere,suchasfunctionalfamilytherapy.
Reachinghard-to-reachgroups
Childrenandyoungpeoplewhohavecommittedanti-socialactsshouldbereferredwiththeirfamilies
toSureStartPlusalongsideanyotherprogrammeororder.IdeallySureStartPluswouldreachthe
most-at-riskgroupsbeforeriskfactorssuchasanti-socialbehaviourbecamemanifest.Hard-to-reach
groupsareaproblemthattheGovernmenthasacknowledgedwithregardtoSureStart.LikeSure
Start,theSureStartPlusschemeshouldbetargetedgeographicallyatthemostdeprivedareasbutit
shouldberecognisedthat,aswithSureStart,therecouldbeproblemsinthatitmightexcludethe
hardest-to-reachgroups.
Wethereforesuggestadualapproach,combininggeographicallytargetedservicesalongsidean
elementofindividualentitlementtoSureStartPlusservicesforat-riskchildren,tohelpensurethat
theprovisionreachesthosewhoneeditthemost.Thiswouldhelpensurethatchildren’saccesstothe
interventionisnotlimitedbylackofparentalagency.
Onewayinwhichthiscouldbedeliveredisthroughindividualbudgetholding,whichiscurrently
beingpilotedin16areas.Inthepilotschemes,leadprofessionalscontrolindividualbudgetsforat-risk
childrenthatcanbeusedtobuyarangeofservices,includingleisureactivities,schoolholiday
activities,travelcosts,parentingsupportgroups,respitecareandcounselling.Budgetsrangefrom
£100to£2500.Ifbudgetholdingwererolledoutonawiderbasistoallat-riskchildren,anindividual
entitlementtoSureStartPlusservicescouldactasabolt-on,witharingfencedamountavailableto
spendonpreventativeservicesinthebudgetofeachat-riskchild.Thesecouldbeusedtopurchase
treatmentsuchasthoselistedabove.
9.Real,engagingprovisionforexcludedpupils
HugevariationexistsinprovisionforpupilsexcludedfrommainstreamschoolsinEnglandandWales,
withamarked‘insider-outsider’culture.Excludedyoungpeoplewhoarenotinformaleducationare
amongthosemostlikelytocommitanoffenceandbreachanorder.Ensuringthatthereisreal,engaging
provisionforthesegroupsshouldbeanessentialcomponentofanimprovedpreventionstrategy.
Inaforthcomingreport(SodhaandMargo2008),ipprhasrecommendedtheintroductionof
‘outreachschools’,asruninAlbertaProvince,Canada.Theseschools,whichoperateoutofdisused
buildingsandshopfronts,havethesamestatusasstateschools,andfollowthesamecurriculum,but
withamoreflexibletimetable.
Ifschoolssuchasthisweresubsidisedbylocalauthorities,theywouldofferless-structuredlearning
opportunities,combinedwithon-sitetherapistsandsocialworkers,toyoungpeoplewhohavebeen
excludedfrommainstreamprovision.Theyshouldofferamixtureofguidedindependentlearningand
class-basedlearning,withahigherlevelofpastoralsupportthantraditionalschools,andshouldbe
staffedbyfullyqualifiedteacherswhohavetrainingandexperienceofworkingwithyoungpeople
withproblembehaviours.
Researchrevealsstaying-onratesatCanada’soutreachschoolsofmorethan95percent–some
achievementconsideringthattheyareservingthemostchallengingandat-riskyoungpeople.Thekey
totheirsuccessisthattheyaresmall,allowingadequateattentionforeachchild,andofferlessformal
teaching.Timetablesarelessrigid,thereisanexpectationofattendanceforaminimumperiodeach
weekbutworkcanalsobecompletedathomeorelsewhereifthissuitsthechild,andtheyarestrongly
linkedtolocalsocialservicesviatheiron-sitestaff,enablingchildrenandyoungpeopletoreceive
guidanceandsupportwhennecessary.Outreachschoolsarecheaptorunintermsofstaffandresource
costs,andbuildinghireisminimalasaresultofusingdisusedandinformalsitesinthelocalarea.We
recommendthattheUKwouldfollowthismodel.(SeeSodhaandMargo2008,forthcoming.)
10.ReformofASBOlegislation
BetweenApril1999,whenAnti-SocialBehaviourOrders(ASBOs)wereintroduced,andDecember
2005atotalof9,853ASBOswereissuedinEnglandandWales,with41percentoftheseservedon
peopleundertheageof18.TheuseofASBOsisontheincrease,withthemajorityofordersissuedin
thattimeoccurringattheendoftheperiod,in2004(3,440)and2005(4,060)(HomeOffice2005).
Asmoreandmoreevidencecomestolightoftheineffectivenessofpunitivemeasuresalonein
preventingoffending,itisbecomingincreasinglydifficulttojustifytheuseofASBOsonchildren
whenthesearenotaccompaniedbyotherinterventionsaimedataddressingtheirproblems.
AccordingtotheGovernment(HomeOffice2005),theASBOwasneverintendedtobeaformof
punishment,butwasmeantinsteadtodirectfamiliestosupportanddivertyoungpeoplefromcrime.
ButthemannerinwhichASBOshavebeenemployedsincetheirintroduction,andtheextentoftheir
use,hasunderminedthisgoal.Sohasthefactthatthelegislationdoesnotrequireanassessmentof
thechild’sneedsbeforeanorderisgiven–althoughthismaybechanginginlinewith
recommendationsintheChildren’sPlan(2007).EvidencethatASBOsarenotusedtodirectyoung
peopletosupportshouldbesufficienttoencourageproperreformofthesystem.AsTable8.2shows,
IndividualSupportOrders(ISOs)arerarelyhandedouttoyoungpeople,andParentingOrdersarealso
usedquiteinfrequently.ItisASBOsandAcceptableBehaviourContracts(ABCs)thatareusedfar
moreoften.
Table8.2:Anti-socialbehaviourinterventions,bynumbers
Typesofintervention 1Oct03–30Sept04 1Oct04–30Sept05 Percentageincrease
AcceptableBehaviourContracts 5,094 8,654 70
Anti-SocialBehaviourOrders 2,874 4,274 49
HousingInjunctions 946 1,614 71
ParentingContracts 307 1,296 322
ParentingOrders 229 537 134
CrackHouseClosureOrders 176 338 92
IndividualSupportOrders 5 30 500
Note:CrackHouseClosureOrderswerebroughtinfromJanuary2004andIndividualSupportOrdersfromMay2004.
Source:NationalAuditOffice
Recommendations
Cognitivescienceandpsychologicalresearchdonotsupportthenotionthatchildrenasyoungas10
yearsoldcanbetreatedasautonomousindividualswhoarefullyawareoftheconsequencesoftheir
actions.Instead,problematicbehaviourofchildrenofthisageshouldbeseenasasignalofa
problematicfamilyorsocialcontext,andthisneedstobethefocusofinterventions.Anti-social
behaviourshouldbedealtwiththroughstrategiesthattargetfamily,communityandpeergroups,as
recommendedabove,viatherapeuticinterventions,leisureactivitiesandproperprovisionofservices
locally.Strategiestotackleindividualriskfactorswillnotworkiftheydonotalsotacklethefactors
thatunderpinpooremotionalandsocialdevelopment.
WeshouldthereforeundertakeurgentreviewoftheuseofASBOsandcreatenewguidelinesto
ensurethattheyareusedtodivertchildrenawayfromcrimeand,withtheirfamilies,towardsservice
support–ratherthanasemptypunishmentsorshort-termsanctions.
ItwouldbeneitherpoliticallytenablenorrationaltodoawaywithASBOlegislation.Theevidence
fromtheTogetherActionPlanwebsiteshowsthatASBOsserveanimportantfunctioninreassuring
thepublic,anddogivelocalcommunitiesanimportantadditionalpowertocombatthelocaldisorder
thatcangreatlyreducequalityoflife.
However,onthebackoftheevidencecitedinthisreport,werecommendthatASBOsshouldnotbe
giventochildrenunder14yearsofageunlessaccompaniedbyfamily-basedandotherinterventions.
Thiswouldservetoreaffirmtheroleofthefamilyinchildren’slivesandtoensureamoresustainable
approach.Theseordersshoulddirectthefamilytothekindsoftherapeuticinterventionreviewed
here:notmerelyparentingclasses,butmultisystemicorfunctionaltherapyapproachesofproven
efficacy,whichshouldbedeliveredeventuallyviaSureStartPlus.
For15-to18-year-olds,ASBOsshouldbelimitedtobetweensixmonthsandtwoyears,with
therapeuticandfamilyinterventionemployedalongsideallexceptthemostminororders.Thereisno
justificationforanorderthatlastslongerthantwoyears,butcurrentordersmaylastbetweentwo
andtenyears.Atwo-yearASBOsendsthesamemessagetothepublicthatthebehaviourisbeing
dealtwithasalongerorder,butdoesnottieayoungpersonintolonger-term,ineffectivebansthat
aretooeasilybreached.Thisshouldhelpreducethenumberofyoungpeopleendingupincourtfor
breachingordersrelatingtominoranti-socialactivities.
Insomecases,thefamilymaybeaseriousproblemfortheyoungperson–forexample,abuseor
neglectmaybeencouragingtheanti-socialbehaviour.Anti-socialbehaviourlegislationshouldbeable
todirectchildrentosocialservicesand,intheworstcases,therapeuticfostercare.Forexample,Kent
CountyCouncilhasestablishedatherapeuticFosterCareProjectforchildrenagedbetween4and13.
Thechildrenareplacedtemporarily(foruptotwoyears)inatherapeuticfoster-carehome.Thefoster
carersaretrainedby,andarepartof,acareplanningteam,andundertakesometasksnormallycarried
outbysocialworkers,suchasrecordingthechild’sprogressandadvocatingforthechild.Theyalso
meetregularlywithapsychologistandwithothermembersofthecareteamforthechild.Such
interventionshavepreviouslybeenjudgedasveryeffective(seeBaas2005),andshouldbeextended
wherepossibleinseriouslydisadvantagedareas.
Insummary,reformofanti-socialbehaviourlegislationisrequiredinordertolimittheuseof‘empty’
sanctionsandinsteadtouseorderstodirectchildrenandtheirfamiliestoappropriateprogrammes
andprofessionalsupport,viaSureStart,socialservicesand–inthelong-term–SureStartPlus.
Specifically:
• Anti-socialbehaviourlegislationshouldbeexplicitlyframedasawayofdirectingthemostat-risk
youngpeopleandtheirfamiliestowardsappropriatesupportandservices,inordertodivert
youngpeoplefromcrime.
• ASBOsshouldnotbeusedonchildrenyoungerthan14.Instead,FamilyandParentingOrders
shouldbeusedtoimprovethefamilycontextinwhichthebehaviouroccurs,ortoensure
appropriatecareforthechildinextremesituations,suchasfostercareoradditionalservice
supportforthefamily.
• Childrenaged15-18shouldbeassessedinallcasesasamatterofcoursebeforebeinggivenan
ASBO.
• ThelengthofASBOsforolderchildrenunder18shouldbescaledbacktobetweensixand24
months.
11.Decriminalisingchildren
Therecommendationsabovewouldbeafirststeptowardsamorewelfare-orientatedapproachto
divertingyouthcrime.
However,severalfindingsreportedhereshouldalsohaveimplicationsforournotionofwhenachild
canbeheldcriminallyresponsible,andhowwerespondtoyouthoffending.
Neuroscience,developmentalpsychologyandbehaviouralscienceallproduceevidencetosuggest
thatthecapacitytomakemoraldecisionsandtocontrolemotionsisunderdevelopedinchildrenand
teenagers.Punitivemeasuresmaythereforebeinappropriateforyoungpeopleinthe10-14age
range.Instead,theyneedtolearn,throughpropertherapeuticinterventionsthathavebeentriedand
tested,tocontroltheiremotionsandbehaviour,andtobegivenachancetodevelopthecapacityto
dosobeforebeinggivenacriminalrecord.
Evidencefromaroundtheworldshowsthatpunitivemeasuresdonotdivertyoungpeoplefromcrime
aseffectivelyasdotherapeuticandfamily-basedinterventions.Usingcivilroutestodirectyoung
peopletoappropriatesupportandinterventionwouldthereforebelesscostlyandmoreeffectivethan
thepresentinterventions.
Politically,thecriminalisingofyoungchildrensendsthewrongmessagetothepublicandencourages
theexistingnegativeattitudestochildrenandyoungpeople.Instead,weneedtorepresentchildren
astheyare–atleastpartlyasproductsofaparticularenvironment,notyetautonomousindividuals,
andcapableofreformingbehaviourandattitudesifgiventheappropriateopportunity.
Currentpublicandpoliticaldebatemeansthatfurtherchangetocriminaljusticelegislationwillbe
difficulttoundertake.Butinthelongterm,theaimmustbetogroundtheresponsetoyouthcrime
fullyintheevidenceofwhatworks,andinamorewelfare-orientatedapproachtoyouthoffending.
Alongsidethis,wemustcontinuetochallengeandquestionthelanguageusedinmediaandbypublic
figures,includingpoliticians,todescribeyoungpeopleandrefutetheclaimthatyoungpeopleare
somehowdistinctfrommainstreamsociety.Recognisingtheresponsibilityofadultstotheyounger
generationmaynotbeachallengethatpolicyalonecansolve,but,asthisreportshows,thereare
someimportantwaysinwhichitcanmakeastart.
Appendix:Dataanalysisofthe1970cohort
SoniaSodha
ThisAppendixdetailstheoriginaldataanalysisofthe1970BritishCohortStudy,suppliedbytheUK
dataarchive,carriedoutbyipprforthisreport,tolookatmentalhealthoutcomesatage16.Thisdata
analysislooksatthefactorsthatareassociatedwithhigherlevelsofmalaiseandbehaviouraland
emotionalproblemsatage16forthe1970cohort.Theresultsarereportedattheendofthis
Appendix.
The1970BritishCohortStudy
TheBritishCohortStudy(BCS)isalongitudinalsurveythattrackedarepresentativesampleofpeople
borninEngland,ScotlandandWalesduringtheweekof5-11April1970.Informationwasalso
collectedatage5(in1975),atage10(1980),atage16(1986),atage26(1996),atage30(1999-
2000)andatage34(2004-05).Thesamplesizein1970contained17,200children.However,in
subsequentyearsthesamplesizewasmuchsmallerduetoattrition,withsomechildrennottracedfor
subsequentinterviews.
Thestudyrepresentsanincrediblyrichsourceofdata:althoughitwasoriginallydesignedwitha
specificfocusonperinatalmortalityandtheprovisionofantenatalandpostnatalservices,inlater
wavesitexpandeditsfocustoawiderangeofsocioeconomic,demographic,health,attitudinaland
abilitymeasures(Sigle-Rushton2004).Despiterelativelyhighratesofattrition,paststudieshave
shownthatthesamplesizesachievedremainbroadlyrepresentativeoftheBritishpopulation
(Shepherd1997).
Mentalhealthoutcomesinadolescence:previousfindings
Todeterminewhichchildhood/adolescencefactorsmightbeimportantindeterminingpoor
adolescentmentalhealthoutcomes,weundertookaliteraturereviewofexistingstudiesofmental
healthoutcomesbasedontheanalysisoflarge-scaledata.Ourreviewoffersagoodguideastowhich
factorsweneedtoincludeinourdataanalysis,butdemonstratesthatthereisagap:thereisno
analysisthatusesstatisticalregressiontechniquesoneitherlongitudinalornon-longitudinalUKdata
toexaminewhichfactorsareassociatedwithnegativementalhealthoutcomesinadolescence,as
opposedtoinchildhood.
Moreover,thereisnoUKstudythatexaminesindicatorsofemotionalwell-beinginchildhood,suchas
self-esteem,locusofcontrolandanxiety,andtheassociationoftheseindicatorswithnegativemental
healthoutcomesinadolescence.
AstudybyMeltzeretal (2000),basedonNationalStatisticsdatafrom1999,examineswhich
populationsofchildrenaged5-15aremostlikelytosufferfrommentalhealthoutcomes,basedon
surveydatafromparents,teachersandthechildrenthemselves.Theyfindthatpoormentalhealth
outcomes–intheformofemotionaldisorders(suchasanxiety,depressionandobsession),
hyperactivitydisorders(suchasinattentionandoveractivity)andconductdisorders(characterisedby
awkward,troublesome,aggressiveandanti-socialbehaviours)–aremoreprevalentwithincertain
populations.
Thesepopulationsareasfollows:
• Childrenfromlowersocioeconomicgroups–14percentofchildreninsocialclassV(unskilled
occupations)hadmentalhealthproblemscomparedwithjust5percentinsocialclassI
• Childrenfromfamiliesinlower-incomegroups
• Childrenfromlone-parentfamilies:16percentofchildrenfromlone-parentfamilieshadmental
healthproblemscomparedwith8percentfromtwo-parentfamilies
• Step-families:15percentfromstep-familiescomparedwith9percentfromotherfamilies
• Childrenfromlargefamilies
• Childrenwhoseparentshadlowerornoeducationalqualifications:15percentofchildrenwhose
parentshadnoqualificationscomparedwith6percentofchildrenwhoseparentshaddegree-
levelqualifications
• Childrenwhoseparentswereoutofwork:infamiliesinwhichneitherparenthadeverworked,21
percentofchildrenhadmentalhealthproblems
• Childreninrentedaccommodation:13percentofchildreninprivately-rentedaccommodation
and17percentofchildreninsocialhousinghadmentalhealthproblemscomparedwithjust6
percentofthoseinowner-occupierfamilies
• Childrenwithphysicaldisorders,includingepilepsy,coordinationdifficulties,muscledisease,bed-
wettingandobesity
• Childrenwithspecialneeds:44percentofchildrenwiththeseverestlevelofspecialneeds
(stages4and5)hadproblems,comparedwith6percentofchildrenwithoutspecialneeds
• Childrenwhoseparentshadmentalhealthproblems.
However,Meltzeretal (2000)donotperformastatisticalregressiononthisdata,soitisnotpossible
toextrapolatehowimportanteachoftheabovefactorsiswhileallotherfactorsareheldconstant.
Thismeansthatwecannotdrawoutrelationshipsfromthedata,asonerelationship(forexample,
betweenparentalmentalhealthandchildmentalhealth)mayentirelyaccountforanother(for
example,betweensocialclassandchildmentalhealth).Allthisdataenablesustodoistodraw
conclusionsabouttheincidenceofmentalhealthproblemsindifferentpopulationgroups.
Siegle-Rushton(2004)usesthe1970BritishCohortStudytoundertakeastatisticalregression
analysisofmentalhealthoutcomesinadulthood(atage30).Usingself-reportedmalaise(seebelow)
astheoutcomeofinterest,shefindsthatformen,anxiety,aggression,lowperformanceinacademic
tests,experienceoflivinginpoverty,lowersocialclassandlivinginsocialhousinginchildhoodwere
associatedwithhigherlevelsofmalaiseatage30.Forwomen,restlessness,aggression,low
performanceinacademictests,livinginnon-owner-occupiedhousing,povertyinchildhoodandlower
socialclassinchildhoodwereassociatedwithhigherlevelsofmalaiseatage30.Theanalysiscontrols
forawiderangeofsocioeconomicanddemographicfactors,butnotforlocusofcontrol,self-esteem
orparentalmentalhealthinchildhood.
TherearealsoimportantstudiesintheUnitedStatesandSwitzerlandthatexamineadolescentmental
health.DatafromtheOregonAdolescentDepressionProject–alargecohortstudyofstudentsaged
14-18whowereassessedattwopointsoverayear–showarelationshipbetweenbehavioural
problems,experienceofstressfullifeevents,lowself-esteem,increasedself-consciousness,reduced
socialsupport,excessivelyemotionaldependenceonothersandimpairedcopingskills,anddepression
inadolescence(Lewinsohnetal 1994).
Meanwhile,analysisoftheZurichAdolescentandPsychologyandPsychopathologyStudy,a
longitudinalstudyfromtheearly1990sofyoungpeopleatages13,16and20,showsthatavoidant
behaviour,perceivedparentalrejection,highlevelsofcompetitionamongclassmates,controlling
teachersandhighperformancestressatschoolwereriskfactorsforexternalisingbehaviourproblems
(includingdisruptivebehaviourandconductdisorders).Similarly,avoidantbehaviour,perceived
parentalrejection,highlevelsofcompetitionamongclassmates,andcontrollingteacherswere
associatedwithinternalisingbehaviourproblems(includinganxietyanddepression).Highself-esteem,
perceivedparentalwarmthandpeeracceptanceseemedtobeprotectivefactorsforbothkindsof
problems(Steinhausen2006).
Previousanalysesusingthisstudyhavealsoshownthatlowself-esteemisstronglyassociatedwith
depression(SteinhausenandWinklerMetzke2001).
Rosenbergetal (1989)usedatafromYouthinTransition,aUSpanelstudyof10th-gradeboys
interviewedin1966and1968,toconsiderthecausalrelationshipbetweenself-esteemand
depression.Thisstudyalsoidentifiedastrongrelationshipbetweenlowself-esteemanddepression,
andtheanalysissuggestedthatmostofthecausalrelationshipranfromself-esteemtodepression.
Assessingbehaviouralandemotionaloutcomesinadolescence
Toassessbehaviouralandemotionalwell-beinginadolescence,weuseavarietyofindicatorsthatare
availableintheBCSdata.Thefirstisself-reportedmalaise,assessedusingthe15-itempsychological
subscaleoftheMalaiseInventory(Rodgersetal 1999).Originallydevelopedinthe1970sbyMichael
Rutter(Rutteretal 1970),thisisacommonly-usedself-completionscalefortheassessmentof
psychiatricmorbidityusingquestionsaboutthesymptomsofdepressionandanxiety.Itassesses
depressedmoodratherthandepressivedisordersdirectly(Collishawetal 2004b).Ithasbeenshown
tobeinternallyconsistentandexternallyvalid(Rodgersetal 1999).
TheBritishCohortStudyfollow-uppupilquestionnaire,conducted16yearsafterthestudystarted,
containedthefollowingquestionstoassessmalaise:
1.Doyoufeeltired?
2.Doyoufeelmiserableordepressed?
3.Dothingsworryyou?
4.Doyouhavegreatdifficultysleeping?
5.Doyouwakeunnecessarilyearlyinthemorning?
6.Doyouwearyourselfoutworryingaboutyourhealth?
7.Doyouevergetintoaviolentrage?
8.Dopeopleannoyandirritateyou?
9.Doyousuddenlybecomescaredfornogoodreason?
10.Areyouscaredifalone?
11.Areyoueasilyupsetorirritated?
12.Areyoufrightenedofgoingoutaloneormeetingpeople?
13.Areyoukeyedupandjittery?
14.Isyourappetitepoor?
15.Doeseverylittlethinggetonyournervesandwearyouout?
Studentswereaskedtorespond‘mostofthetime’,‘someofthetime’or‘rarelyornever’.Foreach
question,wescored0for‘rarelyornever’,0.5for‘someofthetime’,and1for‘mostofthetime’to
produceamalaisescoreoutof15.
Summaryinformationaboutmalaiseatage16ispresentedinTable1.
Table1:Malaisescoresatage16
Observations Mean Standarddeviation Median Lowerquartile Upperquartile Min Max
4,837 3.40 2.10 3 2 4.5 0 15
AsTable1shows,dataonmalaiseisavailableonlyforarestrictednumberinthesample:for4,837of
the6,00316-year-oldswhocompletedthestudentquestionnairein1986,andofthe10,112children
whohavesomedatainthe1970,1980and1986waves.
Wethereforecreatedadummyvariableforamissingmalaisescoreandranaprobitregressionforall
10,112childrenwithdataineachofthethreewavesused,controllingformother’sageatbirth,birth
weight,numberofoldersiblings,sex,socioeconomicgroupatage10and16,father’seducationlevel,
mother’seducationlevel,eligibilityforfreeschoolmealsatage10,whetherparentalattitudeswere
hostileordismissiveatage10,whetherthechildhadnoparentsatage10,whethertherewasno
fatherfigureinthehouseholdatage10,housingtenureatages10and16,andfatherandmother’s
employmentstatusatages10and16.
Thefollowingfactorswerefoundtobesignificantlyassociatedwithamissingmalaisescore:
• Youngermotheratbirth
• Havingoldersiblings–particularlymorethanone
• Fatherhavingnoqualifications
• Beingmale
• Motherhavingnoqualifications
• Entitlementtofreeschoolmealsatage10
• Parentsnotowninghomeatages10and16
• Motherunemployedatage10
• BeingfromsocioeconomicgroupIV(partlyskilledoccupations)orV(unskilledoccupations)at
age16.
Ratherthanimputemalaisescoresforsuchalargesectionofthesample,wedroppedmissingcases
fromtheanalysis.Thisdoesneedtobeborneinmindwheninterpretingthefollowingfindings.
However,ourmodelsbelowsuggestthatmalaiseatage16isnotsignificantlyassociatedwithmostof
thefactorsabove.
Thesecondsetofindicatorsthatweusedcomprisesaseriesofbehaviouralindicators.Information
wascollectedonbehaviouratages10and16,bothatschool(inateachers’questionnaire)andat
home(inparentalinterviews).Wehaveusedtheinformationfromparentsaboutachild’sbehaviour:
firstbecausethequestionsaskedofparentsatage16weremuchmorewiderangingthanthose
askedofteachers,andsecondbecausethereturnrateofteacherquestionnairesin1986was
extremelylow(just3,816)duetoaNationalUnionofTeachersstrikethatwasonatthetime
(GoodmanandButler1986,Gerova2005).
Inordertoassessbehaviouraloutcomesatage16,wefollowCollishawetal (2004b)inproducingfour
compositescoresfor:
• Aggressiveconduct(assessedusingevidenceoffightingorbullying)
• Non-aggressiveconduct(assessedusingevidenceofstealing,lyinganddisobedience)
• Hyperactivity(assessedusingevidenceoffidgeting,restlessnessandinattention)
• Emotionalproblems(assessedusingevidenceofmisery,worriesandbeingfearfulofnew
situations).
Atage16,motherswereaskedwhetherstatementsregardingtheabove‘certainlyapplies’,‘applies
somewhat’or‘doesn’tapply’totheirchildren–or,insomecases,whetherstatementsappliedtotheir
children‘verymuch’,‘prettymuch’,‘justalittle’or‘notatall’.Wescoredanswerstoquestionswith
threediscretecategories0,0.5or1(with1indicatingpresenceofabehaviouralproblem),and
answerswithfourdiscretecategories:0,0.33,0.66or1.Wethenstandardisedscorestohaveamean
of0andastandarddeviationof1.
Table2showsthemean,standarddeviation,minimaandmaximaforeachofthecompositescores.
Table2:Standardisedbehaviouralscoresatage16
Score Observations Missingscores Mean Standarddeviation Min Max
Aggressiveconduct 7,720 730 0 1 -0.359 6.653
Non-aggressiveconduct 7,751 750 0 1 -0.563 5.257
Hyperactivity 7,811 781 0 1 -0.740 5.047
Emotionalproblems 7,763 767 0 1 -0.798 4.317
Explanatoryvariables
Belowwediscusstheexplanatoryvariablesusedinourmodels.
Emotionalwell-beinginchildhood
Weusedsixmeasuresasproxiesforemotionalwell-beinginchildhood,describedbelow.
Locusofcontrol
Thefirstindicatorofemotionalwell-beingusedhereislocusofcontrol(Rotter1954,Feinstein2000).
Locusofcontrolreferstoanindividual’ssenseofbeingabletoinfluencetheirowndestiny.Individuals
withahighlocusofcontrolarebetterabletoprocessinformationfromtheoutsideworld,are
concernedwithimprovingthemselvesandtheircircumstances,andaremorestableinresponseto
externalinfluences(Rotter1954).
LocusofcontrolisassessedbymeansoftheCARALOCquestionnairedevelopedbyGammage(1975).
Thisisaseriesof15questions(withfiveadditionaldistracterquestions)asfollows:
1.Doyoufeelthatmostofthetimeit’snotworthtryinghardbecausethingsneverturnoutright
anyway?
2.Doyoufeelthatwishingcanmakegoodthingshappen?
3.Arepeoplegoodtoyounomatterhowyouacttowardsthem?
4.Doyouusuallyfeelthatit’salmostuselesstotryinschoolbecauseothersareclevererthanyou?
5.Isahighmarkjustamatterof‘luck’foryou?
6.Aretestsjustalotofguessworkforyou?
7.Areyouoftenblamedforthingswhichjustaren’tyourfault?
8.Areyouthekindofpersonwhobelievesthatplanningaheadmakesthingsturnoutbetter?
9.Whenbadthingshappentoyou,isitusuallysomeoneelse’sfault?
10.Whensomeoneisveryangrywithyou,isitimpossibletomakehimyourfriendagain?
11.Whennicethingshappentoyouisitonlygoodluck?
12.Whenyougetintoanargumentisitusuallytheotherperson’sfault?
13.Areyousurprisedwhenyourteachersaysyou’vedonewell?
14.Doyouusuallygetlowmarks,evenwhenyoustudyhard?
15.Doyouthinkstudyingfortestsisawasteoftime?
Studentswereaskedtorespondin1980and1986with‘yes’,‘no’and‘don’tknow’astowhether
thesestatementsappliedtothem.Inallcases,‘don’tknow’wasscored0.5.Forallquestionsexcept8,
‘no’wasscored1and‘yes’0,andforQuestion8‘yes’wasscored1and‘no’0.
Westandardisedthesescorestohaveameanof0andstandarddeviationof1.Intheanalysis,we
controlledforthestandardisedCARALOCscoreatage10,andthedifferencebetweenthe
standardisedCARALOCscoresatage10and16.
Table3:StandardisedCARALOCscoresatages10and16
CARALOCage10 8,633 1,479 0 1 -4.22 1.69
CARALOCage16 4,883 5,229 0 1 -4.41 1.38
Self-esteem
Thesecondindicatorofemotionalwell-beingthatweusedisself-esteem.ThisisdefinedbyLawrence
(1981)as‘achild’saffectiveevaluationofthesumtotalofhisorhercharacteristicsbothmentaland
physical’.Likelocusofcontrol,thisisassessedintheBCSin1980and1986usingaquestionnaire–in
thiscase,theLawrenceSelf-EsteemQuestionnaire(LAWSEQ–Lawrence1973).
In1986,therewere12questions:
1.Doyouthinkyourparentsusuallyliketohearaboutyourideas?
2.Doyouoftenfeellonelyatschool?
3.Dootherchildren(pupils)oftenbreakfriendsorfalloutwithyou?
4.Doyouthinkthatotherchildren(pupils)oftensaynastythingsaboutyou?
5.Whenyouhavetosaythingsinfrontofteachers,doyouusuallyfeelshy?
6.Doyouoftenfeelsadbecauseyouhavenobodytoplaywithatschool?
7.Aretherelotsofthingsaboutyourselfyouwouldliketochange?
8.Whenyouhavetosaythingsinfrontofotherchildren,doyouusuallyfeelfoolish?
9.Whenyouwanttotellateachersomething,doyouusuallyfeelfoolish?
10.Doyouoftenhavetofindnewfriends?
11.Doyouusuallyfeelfoolishwhenyoutalktoyourparents?
12.Dootherpeopleoftenthinkthatyoutelllies?
Questions6and8wereomittedin1986.Studentswereaskedtorespond‘yes’,‘no’,or‘don’tknow’.
Again,‘don’tknow’wasalwaysscored0.5,forallquestionsexcept1,‘no’wasscored1and‘yes’0,
andfor1,‘yes’wasscored1and‘no’0.Thesescoreswerestandardisedtohaveameanof0anda
standarddeviationof1.Inthemodelsbelow,wecontrolledforstandardisedself-esteemscoreatage
10,andthedifferencebetweenstandardisedself-esteemscoresatages10and16.
Table4:StandardisedLAWSEQscoresatages10and16
LAWSEQatage10 8,631 1,481 0 1 -3.57 1.27
LAWSEQatage16 4,415 5,697 0 1 -4.36 1.42
Aggressiveconduct,non-aggressiveconduct,hyperactivityandemotionalproblemsatage10
Finally,wealsousedmeasuresofaggressiveconduct,non-aggressiveconduct,hyperactivityand
emotionalproblemsatage10,usingthesamemethodologyasatage16.However,in1980mothers
wereaskedtoscoretheirchildren’sbehaviourbymakingamarkonacontinuousscaleratherthan
usingdiscretecategories,whichwasthencodedasascoreof0to100.Thesescoresweretherefore
simplysummedtogivescoresacrossthesefourdimensions,andstandardisedtogiveameanof0and
standarddeviationof1.
Table5:Standardisedbehaviouralscoresatage10
Aggressiveconduct 7,720 2,392 0 1 -0.36 6.65
Non-aggressiveconduct 7,751 2,361 0 1 -0.56 5.26
Hyperactivity 7,811 2,301 0 1 -0.74 5.05
Emotionalproblems 7,763 2,349 0 1 -0.80 4.32
Othervariables
Inadditiontoemotionalwell-beinginchildhood,wealsocontrolforawiderangeofothervariables,
includingsocioeconomicanddemographicoutcomes:
• Mother’sageatbirth(treatedasacontinuousvariable:53caseswithmissingvaluesdropped)
• Birthweight(treatedasacontinuousvariable:8caseswithmissingvaluesdropped)
• Numberofoldersiblings
• Sex
• Socioeconomicgroupofheadofthehouseholdatages10and16
• Father/mother’shighestqualificationatages10and16
• Eligibilityforfreeschoolmealsatage10
• Whethermother/father’sattitudestowardstheirchildarehostileatage10
• Whethermother/father’sattitudestowardstheirchildaredismissiveatage10
• Whetherthechildhasnoparentsatage10
• Whetherthechildhasnofatherfigureinthehouseholdatage10
• Housingtenureatages10and16
• Employmentstatusofmotherandfatheratages10and16
• Child’sreadingscoreontheEdinburghReadingTestatage10(scoreswerestandardisedtogivea
meanof0andstandarddeviationof1)
• Child’smathsscoreontheFriendlyMathsTestatage10(scoreswerestandardisedtogivea
meanof0andstandarddeviationof1)
• Mother’sstandardisedmalaisescoreatage10(calculatedfromthe15-pointpsychological
MalaiseInventory.Incontrasttothepupilmalaisequestionnaireatage16,motherswereasked
tomarktheextenttowhichastatementappliedtothemalongacontinuousscale,andthese
responseswerecodedasascoreof0to100.Themother’smalaisescorewascalculatedby
summingscoresoverthe15questions,andstandardisingscorestogiveameanof0and
standarddeviationof1).
Results
WeranOrdinaryLeastSquares(OLS)linearregressionsonmalaisescoresandthestandardised
behaviouralscoresatage16,controllingfortheabovevariablesatages10and16.Theresultsare
presentedbelow.
Model1:Malaiseatage16
• OLSregression
• Dependentvariable:malaiseat16
• Numberofobservations:2,296
•R-squared:0.2851
*anditalics indicatessignificanceatthe10percentlevel
**andbold indicatessignificanceatthe5percentlevel
Explanatoryvariable Coefficient Standarderror

Mother’sage -.0089
.0087
Birthweight(kg) .0000 .0001
Numberofoldersiblings(comparator:none)
One .1500* .0883
Two -.0374 .1249
Threeormore .1324 .1605
Sex(comparator:male)
Female .8577** .0787
Householdsocioeconomicstatusatage10(comparator:IorII)
IIIman/non-man -.1307 .1113
cont.nextpage
IV/V -.2488 .1526

missing -.2789 .2354
IV/V .1724 .1877
missing -.1907 .1698
Father’shighestqual(comparator:none/other)
Degree .1166 .1364
A-level .1924 .1268
O-level .1024 .1066
Mother’shighestqual(comparator:none/other)
Degree .3036 .2004
A-level -.0996 .1430
O-level -.0566 .0926
Freeschoolmealsat10 .1542 .1732
Noparents .3109 .3273
Nofatherfigureinhousehold .2156 .3535
Housingtenureatage10(comparator:parents’own)
Privaterented -.4431 .2728
Socialhousing -.1770 .1215
Other -.1685 .2327
missing -.5036 .4040
Privaterented .0228 .2849
Socialhousing .0836 .1481
Other -.0959 .2622
missing
Father’semploymentstatusat10(comparator:employed)
Outofwork -.0776 .2255
Other/missing .1951 .3505
Mother’semploymentstatusat10(comparator:employed)
Unemployed .0397 .2586
Lookingafterhome -.0308 .0874
Other/missing .6324** .1823
Outofwork .2481 .1770
Unemployed .7269** .2597
Father’sattitudedismissiveatage10 -.2229 .5146
Mother’sattitudedismissiveatage10 -.5174 .4853
Father’sattitudehostileatage10 -1.2386 1.8698
Mother’sattitudehostileatage10 -.2395 .8843
Mother’smalaisescoreat10 -.0834* .0458
Locusofcontrol10 -.3165** .0621
Diffinlocusofcontrol10-16 -.3965** .0455
Self-esteem10 -.8204** .0548
Diffinself-esteem10-16 -.7677** .0411
Aggressiveconduct10 .0287 .0551
Non-aggressiveconduct10 -.0444 .0549
Hyperactivity10 -.0838* .0487
Emotionalproblems10 .1672** .0417
Readingscoreat10 .1395** .0543
Mathsscoreat10 .0575 .0575
Constant 3.1969** .3577
Model2:Aggressiveconductatage16
• OLSregression
• Dependentvariable:standardisedaggressiveconductatage16
• R-squared:0.1803
*anditalicsindicatessignificanceatthe10percentlevel

Mother’sage -.0103** .0042
Birthweight(kg) .0000 .0000
One -.0779* .0420
Two -.0436 .0604
Female -.0134 .0376
IV/V .0796 .0738
missing .0969 .1095
IV/V -.0150 .0865
missing -.0133 .0785
Degree .0341 .0644
A-level .0675 .0605
O-level .0227 .0509
Degree .0035 .0965
A-level .0260 .0676
O-level .0306 .0433
Freeschoolmealsat10 .1602* .0830
Noparents .2744* .1610
Nofatherfigureinhousehold -.0432 .1715
Socialhousing .1626** .0580
Other .1259 .1112
missing .0341 .1752
Other -.1728 .1300
missing .0817 .0830
Outofwork -.2119** .1062
cont.nextpage
Lookingafterhome .0607 .0420

Other/missing -.0195 .0883
Father’sattitudehostileatage10 (dropped)
Mother’sattitudehostileatage10 .1527 .5483
Mother’smalaisescoreat10 -.0313 .0219
Locusofcontrol10 -.0560* .0300
Diffinlocusofcontrol10-16 -.0258 .0218
Self-esteem10 -.0650** .0261
Diffinself-esteem10-16 -.0379* .0195
Aggressiveconduct10 .3096** .0264
Non-aggressiveconduct10 .0084 .0260
Hyperactivity10 .0410* .0230
Emotionalproblems10 -.0532** .0199
Readingscoreat10 -.0136 .0257
Mathsscoreat10 -.0056 .0272
Constant .1619 .1710
Model3:Non-aggressiveconductat16
• OLSregression
• Dependentvariable:standardisednon-aggressiveconductscoreatage16
*anditalics indicatessignificanceatthe10percentlevel

Mother’sage -.0075841* .004009
Birthweight(kg) -.0000135 .0000329
One -.0175373 .0402748
Two -.0066627 .0579142
Threeormore .1026854 .075524
Female -.035776 .0360677
IIIman/non-man -.0404451 .0518636
IV/V -.0852165 .070884
missing .1360171 .1050999
IIIman/non-man -.0369153 .0527306
IV/V -.0329835 .0829832
missing .1360171 .1050999
cont.nextpage
Degree .0294288 .0618477
A-level .0997951* .058123
O-level .0115683 .048783
Degree -.0478001 .092635
A-level .0012656 .0648086
O-level .0266743 .0415232
Freeschoolmealsat10 -.0183711 .0796543
Noparents -.1335874 .154638
Socialhousing .1392519** .0556517
Other .1947188* .1067525
missing -.0511174 .1682692
Other -.0762784 .1248528
missing .0641457 .0753754
Outofwork .0693694 .1019317
Other/missing .0055099 .0403298
Unemployed .1200632 .1142486
Other/missing .0434481 .0847536
Outofwork .1181306 .0773667
Other/missing .0283252 .0699051
Unemployed -.0535812 .1160542
Father’sattitudedismissiveatage10 -.4914231** .2294852
Mother’sattitudedismissiveatage10 .1727229 .2466447
Father’sattitudehostileatage10 (dropped)
Locusofcontrol10 -.1097971** .0288303
Self-esteem10 -.0525211** .0250492
Hyperactivity10 .0708814** .022128
Readingscoreat10 .000907 .0246494
Mathsscoreat10 -.038392 .0261997
Constant .1305561 .1642456
Model4:Hyperactivityat16
• OLSregression
• Dependentvariable:standardisedhyperactivityscoreatage16
• Numberofobservations:1876

Mother’sage .0036 .0044
Birthweight(kg) -.0000 .0000
One .0208 .0442
Two .1185* .0636
Female -.0695* .0396
IIIman/non-man .0027 .0571
IV/V -.0077 .0781
missing .2794** .1156
IV/V .0141* .0913
missing -.0261 .0828
Degree .0493 .0681
A-level .0469 .0637
O-level -.0573 .0536
Degree -.1497 .1019
A-level -.0681 .0712
O-level .0177 .0457
Freeschoolmealsat10 .1011 .0876
Other .1100 .1158
missing -.3107 .1850
Other .0202 .1361
missing .0048 .0872
Outofwork -.0192 .1121
Unemployed -.0176 .1257
cont.nextpage

Mother’sattitudedismissiveatage10 .3457 .2712
Father’sattitudehostileatage10(dropped)
Locusofcontrol10 -.0852** .0317
Self-esteem10 -.0697** .0275
Hyperactivity10 .4283** .0243
Readingscoreat10 -.0178 .0271
Mathsscoreat10 -.0541* .0288
Constant .0068 .1805
Model5:Emotionalproblemsat16
• OLSregression
• Dependentvariable:standardisedemotionalproblemscoreatage16
**andboldindicatessignificanceatthe5percentlevel

Mother’sage .0017 .0048
Birthweight(kg) -.0000 .0000
One -.0205 .0484
Two -.0615 .0694
Threeormore -.0634 .0906
Female .2612** .0433
IV/V -.0298 .0853
missing .0791 .1262
IIIman/non-man .0215 .0633
IV/V .0341 .0996
missing -.1454 .0907
Degree -.0677 .0743
A-level -.0192 .0695
O-level -.0190 .0585
Degree .0820 .1112
A-level .1892** .0777
cont.nextpage
O-level .0548 .0498

Freeschoolmealsat10 -.0804 .0956
Housingtenureatage10(comparator:parentsown)
Other .0573 .1270
missing -.0959 .2021
Housingtenureatage16(comparator:parentsown)
Other .0320 .1497
missing -.1083 .0952
Lookingafterhome .0806* .0484
Outofwork .1962** .0928758
Other/missing .1110* .0646
Father’sattitudehostileatage10(dropped)
Mother’sattitudehostileatage10 .4329 .6320
Mother’smalaisescoreat10 -.0873** .0253
Locusofcontrol10 -.0257 .0346
Self-esteem10 -.1642** .0301
Aggressiveconduct10 -.0301 .0305
Hyperactivity10 .0241 .0266
Emotionalproblems10 .2977** .0230
Readingscoreat10 .0041 .0296
Mathsscoreat10 -.0522* .0315
Constant -.0908 .1970
Table6:Summaryoffindings:emotionalindicatorsatage10associatedwithbehavioural/emotionaloutcomes
atage16
Outcome Emotionalindicatorsofimportance
Aggressiveconduct •Self-esteematage10: improvementinscoreofonestandarddeviation(SD)associatedwith
atage16 6.5%ofoneSDdecrease.Improvementinself-esteemscoresbetween10and16alsoassociatedwith
decrease.
•Locusofcontrolatage10: improvementinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith5.6%ofoneSD
decrease.
•Aggressiveconductatage10: increaseinscoreofoneSDassociatedwitha31%ofoneSD
increase.
•Hyperactivityatage10:increaseinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith4.1%ofoneSDincrease.
•Emotionalproblemsatage10: increaseinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith5.3%ofoneSD
decrease.Itshouldbenotedthisresultisanomalousandgoesintheoppositedirectiontowhatwe
wouldexpect.(Thismaybeduetocollinearitywithothercontrolvariables.)
Non-aggressive •Self-esteematage10: improvementinscoreofonestandarddeviation(SD)associatedwith
conductat16 5.2%ofoneSDdecrease.Improvementinself-esteemscoresbetween10and16alsoassociatedwith
decrease.
•Locusofcontrolatage10:improvementinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith10.9%ofoneSD
decrease.Improvementinlocusofcontrolscoresbetween10and16alsoassociatedwithdecrease.
•Hyperactivityatage10: increaseinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith7.1%ofoneSDincrease.
decrease.Again,thisresultisanomalousandgoesintheoppositedirectiontowhatwewouldexpect.
Hyperactivityat16 •Self-esteematage10:improvementinscoreofonestandarddeviation(SD)associatedwith6.9%
ofoneSDdecrease.Improvementinself-esteemscoresbetween10and16alsoassociatedwith
decrease.
•Locusofcontrolatage10: improvementinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith8.5%ofoneSD
decrease.Improvementinlocusofcontrolscoresbetween10and16alsoassociatedwithdecrease.
•Hyperactivityatage10: increaseinscoreofoneSDassociatedwith42.8%ofoneSDincrease.
decrease.Again,thisresultisanomalousandgoesintheoppositedirectiontowhatwewouldexpect.
Emotionalanxiety •Self-esteematage10: improvementinscoreofonestandarddeviation(SD)associatedwith
at16 16.4%ofoneSDdecrease.Improvementinself-esteemscoresbetween10and16alsoassociated
withdecrease.
increase.
References
AdamsK(2003)‘Abolishjuvenilecurfews’, Criminology&PublicPolicy 6(4):663-669
ADTEurope(2006)Anti-SocialBehaviouracrossEurope London:ADT.Availableat:
http://adt.co.uk/cc4471AD-Great-Britain.pdf
AebiMF,AromaaK,AubussondeCavarlayB,BarclayG,GruszczyñskaB,HoferHv,HysiV,JehleJ-M,
KilliasM,SmitPandTavaresC(2006)EuropeanSourcebookofCrimeandCriminalJusticeStatistics-
2006TheHague:BoomJuridischeUitgevers
AllenJP,PhilliberS,HerrlingSandGabrielKP(1997)‘Preventingteenpregnancyandacademic
failure:experimentalevaluationofadevelopmentallybasedapproach’, ChildDevelopment 64:729-
742
AllenR(2004)RethinkingCrimeandPunishment:Thefinalreport London:EsméeFairbairn
Foundation
AndaloD(2008)‘Government'struancystrategyafailure,sayLibDems’,TheGuardian,2May,
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2277720,2277700.html
AndrewsDAandBontaJ(2003)ThePsychologyofCriminalConduct, 3rdeditionCincinnati,OH:
Anderson
AosS(2002)Cost-BenefitAnalysisforJuvenileJusticePrograms,ProgramEvaluationBriefingSeries
Number4,WashingtonDC:JuvenileJusticeEvaluationCenter
AosS,PhippsP,BarnoskiR,andLiebR(2001)TheComparativeCostsandBenefitsofProgramsTo
ReduceCrime Olympia:WashingtonStateInstituteforPublicPolicy
ArnetteJJ(2004)EmergingAdulthood Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress
AshcroftJ,DanielsDJandFloresJR(2004) BlueprintsforViolencePrevention,ReportNCJ204274,
Colorado:OfficeofJuvenileJusticeandDelinquencyPrevention.Availableat:
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/204274.pdf
BaasNJ(2005)Wegennaarhetrechtepad,TheHague:BibliotheekWODC
BabbP,ButcherH,ChurchJandZealeyL(2006)SocialTrends36 London:TSO.Availableat:
www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/SocialTrends36/Social_Trends_36.pdf
BaileyS(2005)NoMan’sLand:HowBritain’sinnercityyoungarebeingfailed London:Centrefor
YoungPolicyStudies
BalvigF(2001)RisikoUngdom–Youthatrisk Copenhagen:NationalCouncilforCrimePrevention
BannisterA,CarterDLandSchaferJ(2001)‘Anationalpolicesurveyontheuseofjuvenilecurfews’,
JournalofCriminalJustice 29(3):233-240
BarberBL,EcclesJSandStoneMR(2001)‘Whateverhappenedtothe“Jock”,the“Brain”,andthe
“Princess”?:Youngadultpathwayslinkedtoadolescentactivityinvolvementandsocialidentity’,
JournalofAdolescentResearch16:429-455
BBC(2008)‘Teenagerdiesinstreetstabbing’,21January,availableat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7201284.stm
BennettAJ,LeschKP,HeilsA,LongJC,LorenzJG,ShoafSE,ChampouxM,SuomiSJ,LinniolaMV
andHigleyJD(2002)‘Earlyexperienceandserotonintransportergenevariationinteracttoinfluence
primateCNSfunction’,MolecularPsychiatry 7(1):118-122
BennettJandCookeG(eds)(2007) It'sAllAboutYou:Citizen-centredwelfare London:Institutefor
PublicPolicyResearch.Availableat:www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=559
BlandenJ,GoodmanA,GreggPandMachinsS(2004)’ChangesinIntergenerationMobility’,inCorak
M(ed.)GenerationalIncomeMobility Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress
BlandenJ(2006)‘“BuckingtheTrend”:whatemablesthosewhoaredisadvantagedinchildhoodto
succeedlaterinlife?’DWPWorkingPaper No31London:TSO
BontaJ(1997)Offenderrehabilitation:Fromresearchtopractice Ottawa:PublicWorksand
GovernmentServicesCanada
BorW(2004)‘Preventionandtreatmentofchildhoodandadolescentaggressionandantisocial
behaviour:aselectivereview’,AustralianandNewZealandJournalofPsychiatry38(5):373-380
BorduinCM,MannBJ,ConeLT,HenggelerSW,FucciBR,BlaskeDMandWilliamsRA(1995)
‘Multisystematictreatmentofseriousjuvenileoffenders:long-termpreventionofcriminalityand
violence’,JournalofConsultingandClinicalPsychology63:569-578
BottomsA(2006)‘Incivilities,offenceandsocialorderinresidentialcommunities’inVonHirschAand
SimesterAP(eds)Incivilities:Regulatingoffensivebehaviour,studiesinpenaltheoryandpenalethics
HartPublishing:OxfordandPortlandOregon
BradshawJ,HoelscherPandRichardsonD(2006)‘Anindexofchildwell-beingintheEuropean
Union’,SocialIndicatorsResearch(78)1:1-45
BrembergS(2005)NewToolsforParents:Proposalsfornewformsofparentsupport Östersund:
SwedishNationalInstituteofPublicHealth.Availableat:
www.fhi.se/upload/14345/16770ParentsEn.pdf
BrizendineL(2006)TheFemaleBrain NewYork:Broadway
BronfenbrennerU(1979)TheEcologyofHumanDevelopmentCambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity
Press
BuddT,SharpCandMayhewP(2005)OffendinginEnglandandWales:Firstresultsfromthe2003
CrimeandJusticeSurvey,HomeOfficeresearchstudy275,London:HomeOffice
BullockKandJonesB(2004)AcceptableBehaviourContractsaddressingantisocialbehaviourinthe
LondonBoroughofIslington London:HomeOffice
BynnerJ(2005)‘Rethinkingtheyouthphaseofthelife-course:thecaseforemergingadulthood?’,
JournalofYouthStudies 8(4):367-384
BynnerJ,EliasP,McNightA,PanHandPierreG(2002)YoungPeople’schangingroutesto
independenceYork:JRF.Availableat:www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/184263108X.pdf
CohnLD(1991)‘Sexdifferencesinthecourseofpersonalitydevelopment:ameta-analysis’,
PsychologicalBulletin109:252-266
CollishawS,MaughanB,GoodmanRandPicklesA(2004a)‘Affectiveproblemsinadultswithmild
learningdisability:therolesofsocialdisadvantageandillhealth’BritishJournalofPsychiatry,185,
350-351
CollishawS,MaughanB,GoodmanRandPicklesA(2004b)‘Timetrendsinadolescentmental
health’, JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatry 45(8):1350-1362
Compass(2007)TheCommercialisationofChildhood London:Compass.Availableat
http://clients.squareeye.com/uploads/compass/documents/thecommercialisationofchildhood.pdf
ContinYou(2005)TakingPart:Makingout-of-school-hourslearninghappenforchildrenincare
London:ContinYou
CookeGandLawtonK(2008)WorkingOutofPoverty:Astudyofthelow-paidandthe‘working
poor’ London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch.Availableat:
www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=581
CoteSandHealyT(2001)TheWell-beingofNations.Theroleofhumanandsocialcapital Paris:
OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment
CrimmensD,FactorF,JeffsT,PittsJ,PughC,SpenceJandTurnerP(2004) ReachingSocially
ExcludedYoungPeople.Anationalstudyofstreet-basedyouthwork York:JosephRowntree
Foundation
CunninghamC(1998)‘Alargegroupcommunitybasedfamilysystemsapproachtoparenttrainingin
BarkleyR(ed)Attention-DeficitHyperactivityDisorder.Ahandbookfordiagnosisandtreatment New
York:TheGuilfordPress
CurrieC,RobertsC,MorganA,SmithR,SettertobulteW,SamdalO,andBarnekowRasmussenV
(2004)Youngpeople’shealthincontaxt–HealthBehaviourinSchool-agedChildren(HBSC)study:
internationalreportfromthe2001/2002surveyWorldHealthOrganization
DepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies(DCSF)(2007) TheChildren’sPlan:Buildingbrighter
futuresLondon:DCSF.Availableat:www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/childrensplan/downloads/
The_Childrens_Plan.pdf
DepartmentforEducationandSkills(DfES)(2005)EarlyImpactsofSureStartLocalProgrammeson
ChildrenandFamilies:Nationalevaluationreport London:DfES
DepartmentforEducationandSkills(2006a)‘Budgetholdingleadprofessionals:summariesoflocal
authoritypilotbids’,webdocument,London:DfES.Availableat:
www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/_files/D52CE09A5C95877817DD93E3EA9F5C9F.doc
DepartmentforEducationandSkills(2006b)‘Thebudgetholdingleadprofessional:frequentlyasked
questions’,webdocument,London:DfES.Availableat:
www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/_files/D8678C7CFDD0DC3D54CF1B408C2E3278.doc
DixonMandMargoJ(2006) PopulationPolitics London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch.
Availableat:www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=341
DixonM,RogersB,ReedHandStoneL(2006)CrimeShare:Theunequalimpactofcrime London:
InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch.Availableat:www.ippr.org.uk/members/download.asp?f=per
cent2Fecommpercent2Ffilespercent2FCrimeSharepercent2Epdf
DouilletA-CandDeMaillardJ(2007)Presentation:Legislativeinnovationandandjuvenilejusticein
France,7thAnnualConferenceoftheEuropeanSocietyofCriminology.Bologna:EuropeanSocietyof
Criminology
EdwardsA,BarnesM,PlewisIandMorrisKetal (2006)WorkingtoPreventtheSocialExclusionof
ChildrenandYoungPeople:FinallessonsfromthenationalevaluationoftheChildren’sFund London:
DfES
EdwardsLandHatchB(2003)PassingTime:Areportaboutyoungpeopleandcommunities London:
EpsteinR(2007)TheCaseAgainstAdolescence:RediscoveringtheAdultinEveryTeenSanger,CA:
QuillDriver
EriksonEH(1950)ChildhoodandSociety NewYork:Norton
EriksonEH(1958)YoungManLuther NewYork:Norton
EriksonEH(1964)InsightandResponsibility NewYork:Norton
EriksonEH(1968)Identity:Youthandcrisis NewYork:Norton
EstradaF(2005)‘TheTransformationofthePoliticsofCrimeinHighCrimeSocieties’European
JournalofCriminology,1(4),419-443
Farringdon-DouglasJ(2008)YoungOffenders London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch,
forthcoming
FarringtonD(2007)‘Childhoodriskfactorsandrisk-focussedprevention’inMaguireM,MorganR
andReinerR(eds)TheOxfordHandbookofCriminology Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress
FarringtonD,CoidJW,HarnettL,JoliffeD,SoteriouN,TurnerRandWestDJ(2006)CriminalCareers
andLifeSuccess:NewfindingsfromtheCambridgeStudyinDelinquentDevelopment London:Home
Office
FeinsteinL(2000)TheRelativeEconomicImportanceofAcademic,PsychologicalandBehavioural
AttributesDevelopedinChildhood Brighton:UniversityofSussex.Availableat:
www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/economics/dp/Feinstein2.pdf
FeinsteinLandBynnerJ(forthcoming)TheBenefitsofAssetsinChildhoodasProtectionAgainst
AdultSocialExclusion:Therelativeeffectsoffinancial,human,socialandpsychologicalassets,
unpublishedmimeo,London:InstituteofEducation
FeinsteinL,BynnerJandDuckworthK(2005)LeisureContextsinAdolescenceandtheirEffectson
AdultOutcomes London:CentreforResearchontheWiderBenefitsofLearning
FeinsteinLandSabatesR(2006)PredictingAdultLifeOutcomesFromEarlierSignals:Identifying
thoseatrisk London:CentreforResearchontheWiderBenefitsofLearning
Filipčič K(2004)NationalReportonJuvenileCriminallawinSlovenia Ljubljana:Universityof
Ljubljana
FriedCS(2001)‘Juvenilecurfews:aretheyaneffectiveandconstitutionalmeansofcombating
juvenileviolence?’,BehaviouralSciencesandtheLaw 19(1):127-141
FurlongA,CartmelF,BiggartA,SweetingHandWestP(2003)YouthTransitions:Patternsof
vulnerabilityandprocessesofsocialinclusion Edinburgh:ScottishExecutive
GammageP(1975)Socialisation,SchoolingandLocusofControl,unpublishedPhDthesis,Bristol:
UniversityofBristol.
GaviriaAandRaphaelS(1997)School-BasedPeerEffectsandJuvenileBehavior, Economicsworking
paperseries97-21,DepartmentofEconomics,SanDiego:UCSanDiego
GelsthorpeLandBurneyE(2007)Parentingascrimecontrol:acritiqueofgovernmentpolicy, 7th
AnnualConferenceoftheEuropeanSocietyofCriminology.Bologna:EuropeanSocietyofCriminology
GerovaV(2005)EnhancingtheBCS7016-yearHeadTeacherSchoolLevelDataset,BCSdatanote1,
London:CentreforLongitudinalStudies,InstituteofEducation
GibbinsCandJulianG(2006)FamilySpending:Areportonthe2004/-05ExpenditureandFood
SurveyLondon:TSO
GieddJN,BlumenthalJ,JeffriesNO,CastellanosFX,LiuH,ZijdenbosA,PausT,EvansACand
RaporportJ(1999)‘Braindevelopmentduringchildhoodandadolescence:alongitudinalMRIstudy’,
NatureNeuroscience2:861-863
GillT(2007)NoFear:GrowingupinariskaversesocietyLondon:CalousteGulbenkian
GoldbergE(2001)TheExecutiveBrain:Frontallobesandthecivilizedmind NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress
GoodmanAandButlerN(1986)BCS70–The1970BritishCohortStudy:Thesixteenyearfollow-up
London:SocialStatisticsResearchUnit,CityUniversity
GordonDA,GravesK,andArbuthnotJ(1995)‘TheEffectofFunctionalFamilyTherapyfor
DelinquentsonAdultCriminalBehavior’CriminalJusticeandBehavior, 22(1),60-73
GouldE,TanapatP,McEwanBS,FluggeG,GrossCGandFuchsE(1998)‘Proliferationofgranulecell
precursorsinthedentategyrusofadultmonkeysisdiminishedbystress’,ProceedingsoftheNational
AcademyofSciences 95:3168-3171
GrayPandSeddonT(2005)‘Preventionworkwithchildrendisaffectedfromschool’, Health
Education105(1)62-72
GrossmanJBandTierneyJP(1998)‘Doesmentoringwork?AnimpactstudyoftheBigBrothersBig
SistersProgram’, EvaluationReview 22:403-426
HahnRA,LowyJ,BilukhaO,SnyderS,BrissP,CrosbyA,FulliloveMT,TumaF,MoscickiEK,Liberman
A,SchofieldAandCorsoPS(2004)TherapeuticFosterCareforthePreventionofViolence:AReport
onRecommendationsoftheTaskForceonCommunityPreventiveServices Washington,DC:Centers
forDiseaseControlandPrevention
HainesK(2007)JuvenileJusticeinWales,7thAnnualConferenceoftheEuropeanSocietyof
Criminology.Bologna:EuropeanSocietyofCriminology
HalpernD(2001)‘Moralvalues,socialtrustandinequality–canvaluesexplaincrime?’, British
JournalofCriminology 41:236-251
Hansard(2007)HCseries5,vol455,col1665(25January2007)
HanssonK(2001)FamiljebehandlingpåGodaGrunder.Enforskningsbaseradoversikt Stockholm:
Gothia
HarrisLJ(2006)‘AnEmpiricalStudyofParentalResponsibilityLaws:SendingMessages,butWhat
KindandtoWhom?’ UtahLawReview, Vol.2006,No.1
HeckmanJ,StixrudJandUrzuaS(2006)TheEffectsofCognitiveandNoncognitiveAbilitiesonLabor
MarketOutcomesandSocialBehaviour, workingpaper12006,Cambridge,MA:NationalBureauof
EconomicResearch
HellströmA(2005)TheCommunityParentEducationProgram(COPE). Powerpointpresentation
givento6thIUPHEEuropeanConferenceontheEffectivenessandQualityofHealthPromotion,
Stockholm,June1–4.Availableat:www.fhi.se/upload/BestPractice/FR5103_AHellström.ppt
HenggelerSWandBorduinCM(1990)FamilyTherapyandBeyond:Amultisystemicapproachto
treatingthebehaviourproblemsofchildrenandadolescents PacificGrove,CA:Brooks/Cole
HomeOffice(2008)CrimeinEnglandandWales:QuarterlyUpdatetoDecember2007.04/08
London:HomeOffice
HomeOffice(2006)CrimeinEnglandandWales2006/07 London:TSO
HomeOffice(2006b)RespectActionPlan.London:COIAvailableat:
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/respect-action-plan?view=Binary
HomeOffice(2005)Offending,CrimeandJusticeSurvey London:TSO
HomeOffice(2003)TacklingAnti-SocialBehaviourTogether London:TSO
HomelR(2005)‘Developmentcrimeprevention’inTilleyN(ed)HandbookofCrimePreventionand
CommunitySafety Devon:Willan
HoughMandParkA(2002)‘Howmalleableareattitudestocrimeandpunishment?Findingsfroma
Britishdeliberativepoll’inRobertsJandHoughMike(eds)ChangingAttitudestoPunishment:Public
opinion,crimeandjustice Uffculme:WillanPublishing
HughesBandCookeG(2007)‘Children,parentingandfamilies:renewingtheprogressivestory’in
MargoJandPearceN(eds)PoliticsforaNewGeneration Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan
InceD,BeumerM,JonkmanHandVergeerM(2004)VeelbelovendenEffectief,Overzichtvan
Preventieprojectenen-Programma’sindeDomeinenGezin,School,KinderenenJongeren,Wijk.
Utrecht:NIZW
InnesM(2004)‘Signalcrimesandsignaldisorders’,BritishJournalofSociology55:335-355
InstituteofPsychiatry(2007)‘Childmentalhealthissuesneedtobeaddressed’.Availableat
www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/news/?id=179
InternationalCentreforPrisonStudies(2007)Dataavailableatwww.prisonstudies.org/
JakobiS,AllenR,CrookF,FarrowG,GoldsonB,HamiltonC,LawsonA,ThomasMandWilliamsK
(2007)‘TheBritishapproachtoveryyoungoffendersisinappropriate’,lettertotheeditor,TheTimes,
October19
JamesO(1995)Juvenileviolenceinawinner-loserculture:socio-economicandfamilialoriginsofthe
riseinviolenceagainsttheperson London:FreeAssociation
JamesO(2000)‘ConsumingMisery’TheEcologistMagazine,May.Availableat:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2465/is_3_30/ai_62794138
JohnsonAM,MercerCH,ErensB,CopasAJ,McManusS,WellingsK,FentonKA,KorovessisC,
MacDowallW,NanchahalK,PurdonSandFieldH(2001)‘SexualbehaviourinBritain:partnerships,
practicesandHIVriskbehaviours’,TheLancet 358(9296):1835-1842
JonesG(2005)TheThinkingandBehaviourofYoungAdults:LiteraturereviewfortheODPM London:
TSO
JordanWJandNettlesSM(2000)‘Howstudentsinvesttheirtimeoutsideofschool:theeffecton
school-relatedoutcomes’,SocialPsychologyofEducation 3:217-243
Junger-TasJ(2006)‘Trendsininternationaljuvenilejustice:Whatconclusionscanbedrawn?’,inJ.
Junger-TasandSHDecker(Eds.)InternationalHandbookofJuvenileJustice Dordrecht:Springer
KeaneyE(2006)FromAccesstoParticipation:Culturalpolicyandcivilrenewal London:Institutefor
PublicPolicyResearch
KeaneyEandRogersB(2006)ACitizen’sDuty:Voterinequalityandthecaseforcompulsoryturnout
London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch
KernsSEUandPrinzRJ(2002)‘CriticalissuesinthepreventionofViolence-relatedbehaviourin
youth’,ClinicalChildandFamilyPsychologyReview 5(2):133-160
KhanHandMuirR(eds)(2006)StickingTogether:Socialcapitalandlocalgovernment London:
KivivuoriJandSalmiV(2005)TrendsinSelf-ReportedJuvenileDelinquencyinFinland1995-2004,
publicationNo214,Helsinki:NationalResearchInstituteofLegalPolicy
KraemerGW,EbertMH,SchmidtDEandMcKinneyWT(1998)‘Alongitunalstudyoftheeffectof
differentsocialrearingconditionsoncerebrospinalfluidnorepinephrineandbiogenicamine
metabolitesinrhesusmonkeys’,Neuropsychopharmacology 2:175-189
LarsonRW(2000)‘Towardsapsychologyofpositiveyouthdevelopment’,AmericanPsychologist 55
(1):170-183
LarsonRW,WalkerK,PearceN(2005)‘Acomparisonofyouth-drivenandadult-drivenyouth
programs:balancinginputsfromyouthandadults’,JournalofCommunityPsychology33(1):57-74
LawrenceD(1973)ImprovedReadingThroughCounselling London:WardLock
LawrenceD(1981)‘Thedevelopmentofaself-esteemquestionnaire’,BritishJournalofEducational
Psychology51(2):529-538
LaytonMacKenzieD(2006)WhatWorksinCorrections:ReducingtheCriminalActivitiesofOffenders
andDelinquents NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress
LewinsohnP,RobertsR,SeeleyJ,RohdeP,GotlibIandHopsH(1994)‘Adolescentpsychopathology:
IIpsychosocialriskfactorsfordepression’,JournalofAbnormalPsychology103:302–315
LewisM(2007)StatesofReason:Freedom,responsibilityandthegoverningofbehaviourchange
London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch
LibscombS(2005)SecondarySchoolExtracurricularInvolvementandAcademicAchievement:Afixed
effectapproach,unpublishedpaper
LipseyMW(1992)‘Juveniledelinquencytreatment:Ameta-analyticinquiryintothevariabilityof
effects’inCookTD,CooperH,CordrayDS,HartmannH,HedgesLV,LightRJ,LouisTAandMosteller
F(eds)Meta-analysisforExplanation:Acaseboo, NewYork:RussellSage
LyonsC(2000)LovingSmackorLawfulAssault?Acontradictioninhumanrightsandlaw London:
McAraLandMcVieS(2007)‘YouthJustice?:TheImpactofSystemContactonPatternsof
DesistancefromOffending’EuropeanJournalofCriminology,4(3),315-345
MacBethJ,KirmanT,MyersK,McCallJ,SmithI,McKateE,SharpC,BhabraS,WeindlingDand
PocklingtonK(2001)TheImpactofStudySupport:Areportofalongitudinalstudyintotheimpactof
participationinout-of-school-hourslearningontheacademicattainmentattitudesandschool
attendanceofsecondaryschoollearners London:DfES
MacDonaldRandMarshJ(2005)DisconnectedYouth?GrowingupinBritain’spoorneighbourhoods
Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan
MacDonaldR(ed)(1997)Youth,theUnderclassandSocialExclusion London:Routledge
MahoneyJL(2000)‘Participationinschoolextracurricularactivitiesasamoderatorinthe
developmentofantisocialpatterns’,ChildDevelopment 71:502-516
MahoneyJLandCairnsRB(1997)‘Doextracurricularactivitiesprotectagainstearlyschooldropout?’,
DevelopmentalPsychology 33(2):241-253
MahoneyJL,LarsonRWandEccles(2005)OrganizedActivitiesasContextsofDevelopment:
Extracurricularactivities,afterschoolandcommunityprogramsPhiladelphia:LawrenceErlbaum
Associates
MargoJandDixonM,withPearceNandReedH(2006)Freedom’sOrphans:Raisingyouthina
changingworld London:InstituteofPublicPolicyResearch
MargoJandSodhaS(2007)GetHappy:Childrenandyoungpeople’semotionalwellbeing London:
NCH
MayoE(2005) ShoppingGeneration London:NationalConsumerCouncil
McIntoshH,MetzEandYounissJ(2005)‘Communityserviceandidentityformationinadolescence’
inMahoneyJL,LarsonRWandEccles(eds)OrganizedActivitiesasContextsofDevelopment:
Extracurricularactivities,afterschoolandcommunityprograms Philadelphia:LawrenceErlbaum
Associates
McKendrickJ,BradfordMandFielderA(2000)‘Kidcustomer!Commercialisationofplayspaceand
thecommodificationofchildhood’,Childhood 7:295-314
MeltzerH,GatwardR,GoodmanRandFordT(2000)TheMentalHealthofChildrenandAdolescents
inGreatBritain:Summaryreport London:NationalStatistics
MolinaAMDandSowersKM(2005)‘SecondaryPreventionforYouthViolence:AReviewofSelected
School-BasedPrograms’BriefTreatmentandCrisisIntervention,5(1),95-107
NationalAuditOffice(2007)TheHomeOffice:Tacklinganti-socialbehaviourLondon:HSO
NationalFamilyandParentingInstitute(NFPI)(2004)HardSell:Softtargets London:NFPI
NeeCandEllisT(2005)‘Treatingoffendingchildren:whatworks?’,LegalandCriminological
Psychology10:1-16
Nestlé(2006)MakeSpaceforYoungPeople:Nestléfamilymonitor, London:NestléUKLtd.Available
at:www.4children.org.uk/uploads/information/NestleFamilyMonitor.pdf
NewsonJandNewsonE(1972)PatternsofInfantCareinanUrbanCommunity London:Penguin
NicholasS,PoveyD,WalkerAandKershawC(2005)CrimeinEnglandandWales2004/2005
London:TSO
Ofcom(2006)MediaLiteracyAudit:Reportonmedialiteracyamongchildren London:Ofcom
OldsDL,HillPL,O’BrienR,RacineDandMoritzP(2003)‘Takingpreventiveinterventiontoscale:
Thenurse-familypartnership’,CognBehavPract.2003Fall;10(4):278-90
OlssonT,LeifmanH,SundellKandHanssonK(2008)‘Effectiveservicesforalcoholanddrugabusing
youth:perspectivesfromSweden’,inStevensA(Ed.)CrossingFrontiers:InternationalDevelopments
intheTreatmentofDrugDependence.Brighton:PavilionPublishing
OgdenTandHagenKA(2006)‘Multisystemictreatmentofseriousbehaviourproblemsinyouth:
sustainabilityofeffectivenesstwoyearsafterintake’,ChildandAdolescentMentalHealth11(3):142-
149
PageBandWallaceE(2004) Families,ChildrenandYoungPeople–KeyIssues.Findingsfromrecent
MORIstudies London:MORI
PearceN(2007)‘Crimeandpunishment:anewagenda’inPearceNandMargoJ(eds)Politicsfora
NewGeneration:TheprogressivemomentBasingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan
PearceNandMargoJ(2007)PoliticsforaNewGeneration:TheprogressivemomentBasingstoke:
PalgraveMacmillan
PearceNandPaxtonW(eds)(2005)SocialJustice:BuildingafairerBritain London:Institutefor
PublicPolicyResearch/Politicos
PetersiliaJandTurnerS(1993)‘Intensiveprobationandparole’,CrimeandJustice 17:281-335
PetrosinoA,TurpinPetrosinoCandBuehlerJ(2003)‘Scaredstraightandotherjuvenileawareness
programsforpreventingjuveniledelinquency:asystematicreviewoftherandomizedexperimental
evidence’,TheAnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyofPoliticalandSocialScience 589(1):41-61
PittsJ(2005)‘Noboundaries–theanti-socialbehaviourindustryandyoungpeople’,Community
SafetyJournal4(4):23-33
QuilgarsQ,SearleBandKeungA(2005)‘Mentalhealthandwell-being’inBradshawBandMayhew
E(eds)TheWell-beingofChildrenintheUK (2ndedn)London:SavetheChildren
RankinJ(2005)MentalHealthintheMainstream London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch
RobinsonMB(2004)WhyCrime?AnIntegratedSystemsTheoryofAntisocialBehaviourUpperSaddle
River,NJ:PrenticeHall
RodgersB,PicklesA,PowerC,CollishawSandMaughanB(1999)‘Validityofthemalaiseinventory
ingeneralpopulationsamples’,SocialPsychiatryandPsychiatricEpidemiology 34:333-341
RogersB(2005)NewDirectionsinCommunityJustice London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch
RosenbergM,SchoolerCandSchoenbachC(1989)‘Self-esteemandadolescentproblems:modeling
reciprocaleffects’,AmericanSociologicalReview 54(6):1004-1018
RotterJ(1954)SocialLearningandClinicalPsychology NewYork:PrenticeHall
RutterM,TizardJandWhitmoreK(1970)Education,HealthandBehaviour London:Longmans
SampsonR,RaudenbushSandEarlsF(1997)‘Neighbourhoodsandviolentcrime:amultilevelstudy
ofcollectiveefficacy’citedinHalpernD(1999)SocialCapital:Thenewgoldengoose,unpublished
paper,Cambridge:FacultyofSocialandPoliticalSciences,CambridgeUniversity
SampsonRJ(1999)‘Whatcommunitysupplies’inFergusonRandDickensW(eds)UrbanProblems
andCommunityDevelopment WashingtonDC:Brookings
SampsonRJandGrovesW(1989)‘Communitystructureandcrime:testingsocial-disorganization
theory’, TheAmericanJournalofSociology94(4):774-802
SampsonRJandLaubJH(1993)CrimeintheMaking:Pathwaysandturningpointsthroughlife
London:HarvardUniversityPress
SchorJ(2004)BorntoBuy:Thecommercializedchildandthenewconsumerculture NewYork:
Scribner
SchorJandHoltD(eds)(2000)TheConsumerSocietyReader NewYork:TheNewPress
SchweinhartL,MontieJ,XiangJ,BarnettZ,BelfieldCR,NoresM(2004)LifetimeEffects:The
High/ScopePerryPreschoolStudythroughage40 Ypsilanti,MI:High/ScopePress
SchweinhartLJ(2004)TheHigh/ScopePerryPreschoolStudyThroughAge40:Summary,
conclusions,andfrequentlyaskedquestions Ypsilanti,MI:High/ScopePress.Availableat:
www.highscope.org/Research/PerryProject/PerryAge40_SumWeb.pdf
SextonTLandAlexanderJF(2000)‘Functionalfamilytherapy(FFT)’,OJJDPJuvenileJusticeBulletin,
December2000.Availableat:www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/184743.pdf
SharpC,AldridgeJandMedinaJ(2006)Delinquentyouthgroupsandoffendingbehaviour:findings
fromthe2004Offending,CrimeandJusticeSurvey. HomeOfficeonlinereport14/06London:TSO.
Availableat:www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr1406.pdf
SheidowAJ,BradfordWD,HenggelerSW,RowlandMD,Halliday-BoykinsC,SchoenwaldSKandWard
DM(2004)‘Treatmentcostsforyouthsreceivingmultisystemictherapyorhospitalizationaftera
psychiatriccrisis’,PsychiatricServices 55(5):548-554
ShepherdP(1997)‘Surveyandresponse’inBynnerJ,FerriEandShepherdP(eds)GettingOn,
GettingBy,GettingNowhere:Twenty-somethinginthe1990s Aldershot:Ashgate
Sigle-RushtonW(2004)IntergenerationalandLife-CourseTransmissionofSocialExclusioninthe
1970BritishCohortStudy London:CentrefortheAnalysisofSocialExclusion,LondonSchoolof
Economics
SimonsR,SimonsLG,HarbinBurtC,BrodyGHandCutronaC(2005)‘Collectiveefficacy,
authoritativeparentinganddelinquency:alongitudinaltestofamodelofintegratingcommunityand
familylevelprocesses’,Criminology 43:989
SmithDJandMcVie(2003)‘TheoryandmethodintheEdinburghStudyofYouthTransitionsand
Crime’,TheBritishJournalofCriminology 43:169-195
SocialExclusionTaskForce(2006)ReachingOut:Anactionplanonsocialexclusion London:Cabinet
Office
SodhaSandMargoJ(2008)TheFutureSchoolLondon:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch
(forthcoming)
SowellER,ThompsonPM,HolmesCJ,JerniganTLandTogaAW(1999)‘Invivoevidenceforpost-
adolescentbrainmaturationinfrontalandstriatalregions’,NatureNeuroscience 2:859-861
StanleyK(ed)(2005)DaddyDearest?Activefatherhoodandpublicpolicy London:InstituteforPublic
PolicyResearch
StattinH,KerrM,MahoneyJ,PerssonAandMagnussonD(2005)‘Explainingwhyaleisurecontextis
badforsomegirlsandnotforothers’inMahoneyJL,LarsonRWandEcclesJS(eds)Organized
ActivitiesasContextsforDevelopmentLondon:LawrenceElbaum
SteinhausenHC(2006)‘Developmentalpsychopathologyinadolescence:findingsfromaSwissstudy
–theNAPELecture2005’,ActaPsychiatricaScandinavia 113:6–12
SteinhausenH-CandWinklerMetzkeC(2001)‘Adolescentself-rateddepressivesymptomsinaSwiss
epidemiologicalstudy’,JournalofYouthandAdolescence 29:427–440
StevensA,KesslerIandGladstoneB(2006)AReviewofGoodPracticesinPreventingJuvenileCrime
intheEuropeanUnionEuropeanCommunities,reportpreparedfortheEuropeanCommission
StevensA,KesslerIandSteinackK(2006)ReviewofEffectivePracticeinPreventingtheVariousTypes
ofViolenceintheEuropeanUnion Brussels:EuropeanCommission
StevensAWandGladstoneBM(2002)Learning,NotOffending:Effectiveinterventionstotackleyouth
transitiontocrimeinEurope Westerham:RPSRainer
StussDTandAlexanderMP(2000),‘Executivefunctionsandthefrontallobes:aconceptualview’,
PsychologicalResearch63(3-4):289-298
TremblayRE(2004)‘Thedevelopmentofhumanaggression:Howimportantisearlychildhood?’in
HallDMB,LeavittAandFoxNA(eds)SocialandMoralDevelopment:Emergingevidenceonthe
toddleryears NewBrunswick,NJ:JohnsonandJohnson
TuffinR,MorrisJandPooleA(2006)TheNationalReassurancePolicingProgramme:Asix-site
evaluation,HomeOfficeresearchstudy296,London:HomeOffice
TylerTRandBoeckmannRJ(1997)‘Threestrikesandyouareout,butwhy?:thepsychologyof
publicsupportforpunishingrulebreakers’,LawandSocietyReview31:237-265
UNICEF(2007)TheStateoftheWorld’sChildren2007 NewYork:UNICEF
UttingD,MonteiroHandGhateD(2007)InterventionsforChildrenatRiskofDevelopingAntisocial
PersonalityDisorder,London:PolicyResearchBureau
vanDijkJ,ManchinR,vanKesterenJ,NevalaS,andHidegG(2005)EUICSReport:TheBurdenof
CrimeintheEUBrussels:GallupEurope
VidmarNandEllsworthP(1973)‘Publicopinionandthedeathpenalty’,StanfordLawReview 26:
1245-1270
WacquantL(1999)‘HowpenalcommonsensecomestoEuropeans:notesonthetransatlantic
diffusionoftheneo-liberaldoxa’,EuropeanSocieties1(3):319–352
WaldfogelJ(2006)‘WhatChildrenNeed’, PublicPolicyResearch,volume13,issue1
WalkerA,KershawCandNicholasS(2006)CrimeinEnglandandWales2005/06 London:TSO.
Availableat:www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1206.pdf
WeatherburnDandLindB(2001)Delinquent-ProneCommunities Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press
WellingsK,NanchahalKM,McManusS,ErensB,MercerC,JohnsonA,CopasA,KorovessisC,Fenton
K,andFieldJ(2001)‘SexualbehaviourinBritain:Earlyheterosexualexperience’TheLancet
WelshBCandFarringtonDP(2004)‘Surveillanceforcrimepreventioninpublicspace:resultsand
policychoicesinBritainandAmerica’,Criminology&PublicPolicy3(3):497-526
WoodM(2004)PerceptionsandExperienceofAntisocialBehaviour:Findingsfromthe2003/2004
BritishCrimeSurvey,HomeOfficeonlinereport49/04,London:TSO
WoodM(2005)PerceptionsandExperienceofAntisocialBehaviour:Findingsfromthe2003/2004
BritishCrimeSurvey,HomeOfficeonlinereport49/04,London:TSO,availableat:
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr4904.pdf
WyvekensA(2004a)‘Whatworksinreducingcrime’,ChampPénal,November.Availableat:
http://champpenal.revues.org/document68.html
WyvekensA(2004b)TheFrenchJuvenileJusticeSystem.EuropeanSocietyofCriminologyWorking
GrouponJuvenileJustice.Availableat:www.esc-eurocrim.org/files/french_juvenile_justice.doc
YouthJusticeBoard(2006)ASummaryofResearchintoAnti-SocialBehaviourOrdersGiventoYoung
PeopleBetweenJanuary2004andJanuary2005 London:YouthJusticeBoard
YouthJusticeScotland(2008)ServicesforYoungPeopleWhoOffend.Availableat:
www.youthjusticescotland.gov.uk/theme.asp?ID=13

Make Me A Criminal: Preventing Youth Crime

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Make Me A Criminal: Preventing Youth Crime

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WWW.IPPR.

(2005) I like collecting the latest

I like clothes with popular 52

I wish my parents gave me 47

When I buy something the 40

Variable Category Offender(%) Frequentoffender(%) Seriousoffender(%)

Explanatoryvariable Coefficient Standarderror

IV/V -.2488 .1526

Explanatoryvariable Coefficient Standarderror

Lookingafterhome .0607 .0420

Explanatoryvariable Coefficient Standarderror

Explanatoryvariable Coefficient Standarderror

Other/missing -.0505 .0766

Explanatoryvariable Coefficient Standarderror

O-level .0548 .0498

You might also like