With the Youth Justice Board's less-than-sparkling performance on reducing child custody numbers by 10% in recent years (they increased by 10%), it is justifiable to grumble that "something must be done".
So the Prison Reform Trust's proposal to transfer the £279m child detention budget from the YJB to local authorities has been widely welcomed, particularly now that the split between adults' and children's services has had time to bed in.
Moreover, even government ministers are understood to be impressed by the PRT's idea.
The plan would be a rational step, given that local authorities already control budgets for non-custodial sentences.
But, after dividing £279m among all the local authorities in England and Wales, each pot of cash would seem a small one indeed. At least the YJB has had the power to act as an umbrella body and direct resources where they are needed.
Local authorities rightly complain of tight budgets, and this raises the question of funding allocation. For it is often those councils with stretched resources that suffer the greatest social problems.
By taking on the YJB budget, it is argued, councils will be provided with an incentive to find alternatives to custody and prevent offending, something the YJB has palpably failed to do.
It is true that locking up children - locking up anybody - is expensive. Logically, alternatives to custody will be cheaper.
But developing these alternatives, together with new crime prevention strategies, costs money in terms of time, staff and know-how. With council tax capping, it will surely be tempting for local authorities to divert funding from other services if the budget falls short or runs low. Especially if the inevitable government league tables are applied.
However, it cannot be denied that Britain has the highest proportion of children locked up in western Europe, one-third of them for non-violent offences. And, thanks to the Prison Reform Trust's plan, we can now at least say "something is being done".
Leave a comment