News

Deafness is the subject of debate this week, and we ask: Should deafness be regarded as a cultural identity as well as a physical disability?

What do you think? - have your say by clicking here

The deadline is 30 May and your comments will appear in this section of the website on 31 May.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last week's Have your say debate centred on the issue of youth offending and we asked what can be done to stop young people becoming persistent offenders?

Click here to read a recent Community Care article on the subject

These are the responses we received:

"There seems to be so much that is wrong with the treatment of young offenders, I wonder is anything OK?

The idea of two cautions and then a court appearance as a blanket response is nonsensical. I know a young man who after two cautions for being drunk was taken to court for crossing a local single track railway line, an offence that was stupid, but which could have very sensibly been dealt with by another caution.

The idea that young offenders are given a referral order and seen by a team of support workers is great, if that is needed. Some young offenders with family support will find the court appearance will be a sufficient deterrent, others will need other help. An automatic knee jerk response cannot be cost effective, young people are different, their different needs need to be noted and responded to.

If offending behaviour persists this is for some reason. An automatic response of custody for a number of property offences and a completely unpredictable response for offences involving violence makes no sense. It used to be the case that the court would take note of recommendations in social inquiry reports and were not so driven by automatic, set, sentencing policies.

Once in custody young offenders are treated appallingly. No education and often no activities or counselling are offered while they are on remand. Once sentenced they are left for at least six weeks with no programme of activity or education arranged for them. It cannot be beyond the wit of the YOI system to set up continuous rolling programmes of education and activities which new prisoners join on admission. No young person should leave a custodial sentence illiterate, those who go in with basic skills should come out with at least GCSEs or GNVQs in English and Maths and one practical skill. This is a 'captive' and bored audience, where better to ensure a basic educational programme is followed.

When young offenders are due for release normally nothing is arranged for them until they report at the probation office in the week following their release. Surely the probation service in the YOIs should be ensuring that the young people, before release, have a firm plan and arrangements made prior to their release: i.e. accommodation confirmed, training and job applications already sent off. Now none of this happens until after they are released and back with friends with whom they committed the original offences.

The truancy scheme and fostering arrangements described in the article seem great, perhaps Blunkett should be thinking about funding these rather than extra places in prisons for young offenders? But these are only some initiatives, there are many possible and we should not fall into the trap, that has happened so many times before, of thinking that one good idea will fit everyone. Not all young people who offend are the same...some are very disturbed or distressed and need therapeutic help, some have little support at home and need this from elsewhere, some are in need of educational skills and need individual educational programmes, some come from families in extreme poverty and difficulty who need practical help, some are influenced by their peers and will grow out of the offending behaviour and need alternative activities in the community, some only occasionally do stupid things and need to be checked then left alone.

The approach must be an individual one, based on both the offence and the reason for the offence, and must take individual need into account."

Judith Evans

"I work as a young person's mental health specialist in a pilot scheme in Lewisham, offering a service to young people, aged 10-18 years, who are offending or who are at risk of offending, and about whom there are mental health concerns. Referrals come from a variety of sources but especially the YOT (youth offending team) and local schools.

A big issue with this group of people is their willingness or ability to engage in services. Almost all of those referred to our service have been referred elsewhere in the past, and professionals have been unable to engage them over a period of time long enough to bring about or sustain change. One way of increasing levels of engagement is assertive outreach - being prepared to go and find young people when they are not willing to attend appointments. I have found that levels of engagement have increased as I have become more assertive in my outreach. I meet young people at school, at home, in YOI, psychiatric units and in social settings. Few of my appointments are held in the office. In this way, young people get one worker, who is willing to go out of their way to engage them, in whatever setting they happen to be in. Having one person willing to undertake this task and stick with it over time, sends a positive message to the young person, that they are worth the time and trouble. If the young person wants to change, there will then be a sound base from which to work.

I have found this approach particularly helpful with young people at the beginning of their offending career - just the sort of people who would not normally get this level of service. I believe that substantial input at the beginning will save considerable trouble over time."

John Lincoln

Ashby Road Therapy Service (ARTService)