Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Encouraging Compliance, Maintaining Credibility or Fast Tracking to Custody? Perspectives on Enforcement in the Youth Justice System

  • Chapter
What Works in Offender Compliance

  • 518 Accesses

Abstract

The United Kingdom coalition government’s vision for ‘effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders’ is set out in the criminal justice White Paper, ‘Breaking the Cycle’, published in December 2010. The document makes clear that community sentences should not be considered — or indeed experienced — as a ‘soft option’. To this end, steps to ‘improve enforcement’ are required to ensure that non-custodial disposals become ‘more effective and robust punishments’ (Ministry of Justice 2010: paragraph 59). It is apparent that such a rigorous approach is also intended to apply to those below the age of 18 years. The White Paper confirms that community sentences imposed on children must, ‘as with adults’, be ‘robustly enforced’ (Ministry of Justice 2010: paragraph 242). The fact that one of the eight questions for consultation in the chapter on youth justice asks for respondents’ views as to how to ‘increase the effective enforcement of youth sentencing’ (Ministry of Justice 2010: question 50) is indicative of the centrality of this issue to government thinking. Such an emphasis on enforcement is not particular to the present administration. New Labour’s strategy for tackling youth offending, as detailed in the Youth Crime Action Plan, detailed a` triple track’ approach whose first element was ‘enforcement and punishment where behaviour is unacceptable’ (HM Government 2008: 1). While the range of such activity was intended to extend beyond children subject to statutory supervision, it is clear that enforcement of orders imposed by the criminal courts was an important constituent of the broader strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Allen, R. (1991) ‘Out of Jail: The Reduction in the Use of Penal Custody for Male Juveniles 1981–1988’. Howard Journal for Penal Reform 30(1), 30–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, R. (2002) ‘“There Must Be Some Way of Dealing with Kids”: Young Offenders, Public Attitude and Policy Change’. Youth Justice 2(1), 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association for Juvenile Justice (1990) Guidance for Policy and Practice in Juvenile Justice. Leicester: Association for Juvenile Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, T. (2006) ‘Large Rise in Breach of Supervision Orders’. Youth Justice 6(1), 77–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, T. (2011) ‘“We Now Breach More Kids in a Week Than We Used to in a Whole Year”: The Punitive Turn, Enforcement and Custody’. Youth Justice 11(2), 115–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, T. (2012) ‘Who Pulled the Plug? Towards an Explanation of the Fall in Child Imprisonment in England and Wales’. Youth Justice 12(1), 36–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, T. and Stanley, C. (2002) Patterns of Sentencing: Differential Sentencing Across England and Wales. London: Youth Justice Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottoms, A. (2001) ‘Compliance and Community Penalties’. in A. Bottoms, L. Gelsthorpe and S. Rex (Eds) Community Penalties: Changes and Challenges (pp. 87–116). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadman, S. (2005) ‘Proportionality in the Youth Justice System’. in T. Bateman and J. Pitts (Eds) The RHP Companion to Youth Justice. Lyme Regis: Russell House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canton, R. and Eadie, T. (2005) ‘Enforcement’. in T. Bateman and J. Pitts (Eds) The RHP Companion to Youth Justice (pp. 144–150). Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Canton, R. and Patel, K. (2008) ‘Enforcement’. in B. Goldson (Ed.) Dictionary of Youth Justice (pp. 157–158). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chitty, C. (2005) ‘The Impact of Corrections on Reoffending: Conclusions and the Way Forward’. in G. Harper and C. Chitty (Eds) The Impact of Corrections on Re-Offending: A Review of What Works’. Home Office research study 291. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1985) Visions of Social Control. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eadie, T. and Canton, R. (2002) ‘Practicing in a Context of Ambivalence: The Challenge for Youth Justice Workers’. Youth Justice 2(1), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, T., Hedderman, C. and Mortimer, E. (1996) Enforcing Community Sentences: Supervisors’ Perspectives on Ensuring Compliance and Dealing with Breach. Home Office Research Study 158. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, E. (2011) ‘The Age of Criminal Responsibility: Developmental Science and Human Rights Perspectives’. Journal of Children’s Services 6(2), 86–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, M. and Simon, J. (1992) ‘The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy and Its Implications’. Criminology 30(4): 452–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldson, B. (1997) ‘Children in Trouble: State Responses to Juvenile Crime’. In P. Scraton (Ed.) Childhood in Crisis. London: University College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldson, B. (Ed.) (2000) The New Youth Justice. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldson, B. (2002) ‘New Punitiveness: The Politics of Child Incarceration’. in J. Muncie, G. Hughes and E. McLaughlin (Eds) Youth Justice: Critical Readings (pp. 386–399). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldson, B. (2010) ‘The Sleep of (Criminological) Reason: Knowledge-Policy Rupture and New Labour’s Youth Justice Legacy’. Criminology and Criminal Justice 10(1), 155–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E., Taylor, E., Roberts, C., Merrington, S., Fernandez, R. and Moore, R. (2005) Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme: The Final Report. London: Youth Justice Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Great Britain (1988) Criminal Justice Act 1988. Elizabeth II. Chapter 33. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines, K. (2008) ‘Tariff’. in B. Goldson (Ed.) Dictionary of Youth Justice (p. 351). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines, K. and Drakeford, M. (1998) Young People and Youth Justice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, D. (2011) Into the Breach: The Enforcement of Statutory Orders in the Youth Justice System. London: Prison Reform Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hearnden, I. and Millie, A. (2004) ‘Does Tougher Enforcement Lead to Lower Conviction’. Probation Journal 51(1), 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedderman, C. and Hearnden, I. (2000) Improving Enforcement: The Second ACOP Audit. London: ACOP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedderman, C. and Hough, M. (2004) ‘Getting Tough or Being Effective: What Matters?’ in G. Mair (Ed.) What Matters in Probation (pp. 146–169). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Her Majesty’s Government. (2008) Youth Crime Action Plan 2008. London: HM Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holdaway, S., Davidson, N., Dignan, J., Hammersley, R., Hine, R. and Marsh, P. (2001) New Strategies to Address Youth Offending: The National Evaluation of the Pilot Youth Offending Teams. Occasional paper number 69. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office (1989) Home Criminal Statistics: England and Wales 1988. Cmnd 847. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office (1992) National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community — 1992. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office (1993) Criminal Statistics: England and Wales 1992. Cmnd. 2410. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office (1995) National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community — 1995. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office (1997) No More Excuses: A New Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in England and Wales. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office (2004) Offender Management Caseload Statistics. Statistical Bulletin 15/04. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, J., Bhardwa, B., Gyateng, T., Hunter, G. and Hough, M. (2010) Punishing Disadvantage: A Profile of Children in Custody. London: Prison Reform Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. (1989) ‘The Successful Revolution’. Community Care, 30 March: i–ii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. (2010) ‘Public Opinion, Politics and the Response to Youth Crime’. in D. Smith (Ed.) A New Response to Youth Crime. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemshall, H. (2008) ‘Risks, Rights and Justice: Understanding and Responding to Youth Risk’. Youth Justice 8(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, E., Muncie, J. and Hughes, G. (2001) ‘The Permanent Revolution: New Labour, New Public Management and the Modernisation of Criminal Justice’. Criminal Justice 1(3), 301–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, P. and Prior, D. (2008) Engaging Young People Who Offend. London: Youth Justice Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R. (1999) Doing Time: An Introduction to the Sociology of Imprisonment. Basingstoke: Paigrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R. (2005) ‘The Myth of Punitiveness’. Theoretical Criminology 9(2), 175–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2010) Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders. Cmnd 7972. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2012a) Youth Justice Statistics 2010/11. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2012b) Youth Custody Data April 2012. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2012c) Statistical Bulletin on the Public Disorder of 6th to 9th August 2011-June 2012 Update. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muncie, J. (2006) ‘Governing Young People: Coherence and Contradiction in Contemporary Youth Justice’. Critical Social Policy 26(4): 770–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muncie, J. (2009) Youth and Crime. Third Edition. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nacro. (1993) Monitoring the Criminal Justice Act in the New Youth Court: The First Six Months 1 October 1992 to 31 March 1993. London: Nacro.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nacro. (2002) Enforcement in the Youth Justice System. Youth crime briefing. London: Nacro.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nacro. (2003) A Failure of Justice: Reducing Child Imprisonment. London: Nacro.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nacro. (2005) A Better Alternative: Reducing Child Imprisonment. London: Nacro.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Association for Youth Justice. (1996) Policy and Practice Guidelines for Youth Justice. Glenfield: NAYJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newburn, T. (2003) Crime and Criminal Justice Policy. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitts, J. (2001) ‘Korrectional Karaoke: New Labour and the Zombification of Youth Justice’. Youth Justice 1(2), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitts, J. (2003) ‘Changing Youth Justice’. Youth Justice 3(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitts, J. (2004) ‘What Do We Want? The “SHAPE” Campaign and the Reform of Youth Justice’. Youth Justice 3(3), 134–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitts, J. (2012) ‘The Third Time as Farce: Whatever Happened to the Penal State?’ in J. Lea and P. Squires (Eds) Criminalisation and Advanced Marginality: Critically Exploring the Work of Loï’c Wacquant. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior, D. and Mason, P. (2010) ‘A Different Kind of Evidence? Looking for “What Works” in Engaging Young Offenders’. Youth Justice 10(3), 211–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. and Hough, M. (Eds) (2002) Changing Attitudes to Punishment: Public Opinion, Crime and Justice. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G. and McNeill, F. (2010) ‘The Dynamics of Compliance with Offender Supervision’. in F. McNeill, P. Raynor and C. Trotterf (Eds) Offender Supervision: New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 367–383). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G. and Ugwudike, P. (2012) ‘Investing in “Toughness”: Probation Enforcement and Legitimacy’. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 51(3), 300–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, A. (1992) Growing Out of Crime. Second Edition. Winchester: Waterside Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2007) Youth Justice: Ideas, Policy and Practice. Second Edition. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souhami, A. (2007) Transforming Youth Justice: Occupational Change and Identity. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straw, J. (1997) ‘Preface by the Home Secretary’. in Home Office No More Excuses: A New Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in England and Wales. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (2007) ‘Determinants of Penal Policies’. in M. Tonry (Ed.) Crime, Punishment and Politics in Comparative Perspective. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 36, 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youth Justice Board. (2000a) Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programmes. London: YJB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youth Justice Board. (2000b) National Standards for Youth Justice -April 2000. London: YJB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youth Justice Board. (2004) National Standards for Youth Justice Services — 2004. London: YJB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youth Justice Board. (2010a) Case Management Guidance: Planning and Delivering Interventions in the Community. London: YJB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youth Justice Board. (2010b) National Standards For Youth Justice Services — 2010. London: YJB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youth Justice Board. (2012) National Standards Trial: April 2012-April 2013. London: YJB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedner, L. (2008) ‘Fixing the Future? The Pre-Emptive Turn in Criminal Justice’. In B. McSherry, A. Norrie and S. Bronitt (Eds) Regulating Deviance: The Redirection of Criminalisation and the Futures of Criminal Law. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Tim Bateman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Swansea University, UK

    Pamela Ugwudike (Lecturer in Criminology) & Peter Raynor (Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice) (Lecturer in Criminology) &  (Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice)

Copyright information

© 2013 Tim Bateman

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bateman, T. (2013). Encouraging Compliance, Maintaining Credibility or Fast Tracking to Custody? Perspectives on Enforcement in the Youth Justice System. In: Ugwudike, P., Raynor, P. (eds) What Works in Offender Compliance. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137019523_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation