Youth Justice Board's Budget Reduced by 45% since 2010/11

The Youth Justice Board has released their Corporate Plan and Business Plan which can be found HERE. The Youth Justice Board is a public body whose members are appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice. The main responsibilities are to oversee the youth justice system in England and Wales, work with others to prevent offending and reoffending by children and young people under the age of 18, and to ensure that custody for young people is safe, secure, and addresses the causes of their offending behavior. Visit their website HERE

The YJB has announced in their 2014-2017 Corporate and Business plan that they will be focusing on reducing reoffending of young people by improving resettlement strategies for young people who are released from custody, increasing educational opportunities while in custody, ensuring young people are placed at the secure estates that best suit them, and by creating the secure college pathfinder to be built in spring 2017. More information about the secure college can be found HERE.

In addition to working closely with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Secretary of State for Justice, the YJB also works with the Home Office. Their mission with the Home Office is to 'prevent anti-social behavior and youth crime, including youth violence and support the delivery of the cross-departmental Ending Gang and Serious Youth Violence strategy and related work to prevent the sexual exploitation of girls'. This is undertaken even though the Home Office has withdrawn all financial support to the YJB this year.

In addition to working with the Home Office, the YJB also works with:

• Young Offenders - to get their opinion on youth justice and youth offending.
• The Department of Health - to ensure there are mental health and substance misuse services available to young people in the youth justice system.
• Department of Education - to ensure education services meet the needs of children and young people.
• Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) - to support YOT objectives and also make sure YOTs are evaluated and performing to high standards.
• Secure Accommodation Providers - such as the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), local authorities and private sectors.
• Voluntary Sectors - with around 6,000 volunteers to support initiatives such as restorative justice, act as appropriate adults for young people in custody, mentors, in prevention or education schemes and with families. If you are interested in volunteering, click HERE
• Adacemic Community - to ensure that advice and guidance is based upon the latest UK and international research.

The main objectives in their Business plan for 2014/15 are as follows:

1. Improvement in the delivery of the youth justice system in the community.
2. To create an under-18 secure estate that better meets the needs of young people.
3. To make structural and process improvements that support a better youth justice system.
4. Make sure young people are placed efficiently in the most appropriate establishment.
5. The safety and well-being of children and young people in the youth justice system is assured.
6. Practitioners have access to the best advice and support, and use this in practice.
7. The YJB is seen as an effective and efficient public body.

Needless to say, the YJB has a lot on their plate over the next year. However, their report has indicated that by the end of 2014/15, they will have 'delivered cumulative savings of £525m, with a budget now £210m (45%) less than the 2010/11 baseline'.

This is the breakdown of expenses and savings made:

 

The YJB is now solely funded by the MoJ following 'the transfer of the Home Office prevention funding from the YJB to police and crime commissioners'. <--- This is another topic for another day...   

One finding based on recent Youth Justice statistics is that there has been a decrease in the number of First Time Entrants (FTEs) into youth custody. This was seen as a result of the positive work of the YJB, which I am sure some of it was. However, in their business plan, the YJB openly admits that in order to deal with the financial challenges stated above, they have incorporated a strategy which is to: 'Maximise savings from having fewer young people in custody by decommissioning beds in the under-18 secure estate'. Well...if you have less money and there are less spaces available in custody for young offenders, then obviously there will be a reduction in the number of FTEs. Is this reduction really an outcome of best practice, or is it simply the outcome of a reduced budget?

This isn't to take away from the hard work that the YJB does to help prevent offending and re-offending. Instead, it is a means to provide a clearer picture of what is really going on and to help us understand that while we are being told that more is being done to help young people in England and Wales, the government is actually spending LESS money on young people at risk of offending and re-offending. It is also important to consider whether or not the government is perhaps embellishing the results of their youth offending statistics by taking credit for the reduction in FTEs, when in reality it is very likely the result of budget cuts and fewer available spaces in youth custody.

A. Neaverson

The Dangers of Labeling, Elizabeth Berenguer Megale

The Dangers of Labeling

Elizabeth Berenguer Megale

            Principles of cognitive psychology teach us that labeling and categorizing objects is natural.  From the time language develops, the left brain tends to dominate right-brained activities and categorizes the world around us.  Children are encouraged to label objects through word-recognition books and exercises requiring them to choose the object that “doesn’t belong.” 

            To a certain extent, labeling and categorization are necessary to our very survival.  Daily, we must make snap decisions about the safety of our choices, and labeling helps us make those decisions quickly.  Labeling, however, can also interfere with our ability to truly live and assess the world around us because in the instant that we categorize something, we cease to “see” that something for what it truly is.  As a fundamental matter, this is why the “-isms” (sexism, racism, and others) are so dangerous and breed senseless hate.

            Let me give you an example of what I mean by “labeling.”  In her book, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, Betty Edwards observed art students who struggled to draw a simple object, like an orange, when she placed the object on a table before the students.  One student remarked that she was looking at the orange, but that she could not see the orange.  What Edwards concluded was that the student failed to see the precise orange resting before her, rather the student was relying on a mental image of what an orange should be. 

Based on this conclusion, Edwards developed an exercise in upside-down drawing where students viewed the original drawing upside down and partially-covered.  This technique tricks the left-brain and prevents categorization of the object.  In turn, it permits the right-brain to assess the item for its true value.  In the context of a drawing, this means the artist begins to see the lines and negative space without identifying the object as a whole.  The end result is a nearly perfect and proportional replica of the original piece.

So, what does this mean in the context of criminal law?  If we accept the notion that crime is a construct, we can understand the potential dangers associated with the human tendency to categorize and label.  Basically, the more criminal laws that exist, the more individuals are likely to be caught in the cross-hairs and become labeled criminal.  Once labeled “criminal,” an individual is hard-pressed to overcome the stigma associated with the label because society ceases to see the person as a person; the person is now just a “criminal.”

If we focus on felons alone, we see that most jurisdictions disenfranchise convicted felons.  Thus, once labeled “felon” individuals lose the ability to participate in the political process in any sort of meaningful way.  Additionally, convicted felons often find it difficult to obtain employment because employers do not want a “criminal” working for them.  They also struggle to obtain suitable housing because landowners do not want a “criminal” living on their property. 

Other labels aside from “felon” exist.  In Florida, someone could be a Prison Releasee Reoffender, a Habitual Felony Offender, or a Habitual Violent Felony Offender.  These labels serve as a basis for seeking stricter and more severe punishment against these individuals.  Throughout the nation, anyone convicted of a sex-related crime may be required to register as a sex offender and thereafter labeled sex offender.  To an outsider, though, these labels all mean essentially the same thing: this person is really bad. 

When a society engages in a process of labeling individuals, it should continually question whether the labeling accomplishes any legitimate purpose.  Certainly, members of society as a whole may feel they are “safer” because they “know” who the “bad guys” are.  This premise is likely untrue, though.  First, if we take marginalized members of society who engage in bad behavior, punish that behavior, and later send them back into a society that no longer accepts them, we are necessarily encouraging worse behavior.  The label further marginalizes individuals who likely already struggled to find a place in society.  Therefore the labeling is likely to encourage more criminal behavior rather than less. 

As a society, our efforts would be well-spent studying the numerous causes of crime and potential responses to those causes.  Over time, increased punishment and permanent designation of individuals as criminals has failed to lower our crime rates.  Moreover, separating out individuals who have committed a crime by labeling them “criminal” seems counterproductive to our goals as a society.  Shouldn’t we want individuals to overcome their pasts, obtain gainful employment, and go on to live healthy and productive lives?  If so, we must eliminate any form of continued punishment associated with the label “criminal.”

Elizabeth Berenguer Megale

Assistant Professor of Law

Barry University School of Law
*References available upon request.