A Study of 'Prolific' Offending by Young People in Wales 2009-2015

A study of ‘prolific’ offending by young people in Wales 2009-2015

Diana Johns, Katherine S Williams and Kevin Haines. Welsh Centre for Crime and Social Justice (WCCSJ) January 2018

Cover photograph used under free MorgueFile licence. Original image URI: http://mrg.bz/PS3Js9

Acknowledgments

This research is the result of collaborative work between the Welsh Centre for Crime and Social Justice and the Youth Justice Board (YJB) Cymru. In particular Dusty Kennedy and Lynzi Jarman (YJB Cymru) who, along with the authors, formed the steering group. We wish to acknowledge this team of people for their genuine commitment to understanding and improving the experience of young people in conflict with the law, and for the wonderful support they gave us in undertaking this research. Diana acknowledges with particular gratitude our YJB colleagues who offered invaluable assistance, support and friendship during her year in Wales.

The people in the YOTs Diana visited across Wales are too numerous to mention individually. Needless to say, without their openness and willingness to help, this research would not have been possible. Thank you to all the YOT workers, managers, information officers, police officers and administrative staff who welcomed Diana into their workplaces, gave their time and energy, and shared their stories, experience and passion for the young people they work with.

We are all incredibly grateful to the four young men who shared their personal experiences of ‘getting into lots of trouble’, and to the YOT workers they trusted enough to allow Diana to meet with them. The perspective of the ‘lads’ themselves on what helped them and made it hard to stay out of trouble was invaluable for the research and to help us understand some of the complexities associated with young people’s ‘prolific’ offending. We regret that it was not possible to interview more of the young people – now young adults – including some of the young women.

Lastly, we appreciate HMP Parc’s willingness to support the research. And, not least, thank you Helen Hodges for helping with the charts.

About the authors

Diana Johns has fifteen years’ experience teaching and researching issues relating to young people in conflict with the law in Australia. Prior to her year in Wales, she was teaching in the criminal justice programme at RMIT University in Melbourne. She has also worked in support roles with vulnerable long-term unemployed people, people with cognitive impairments, and young people with disabilities. In 2013 she completed a PhD on men’s experience of release from prison. For her Master’s degree she studied young people and their significant others’ experience of restorative justice conferencing. She holds a BA in Criminal Justice and an MA in Applied Criminology (RMIT) and a PhD in Criminology from the University of Melbourne where, since 2016, she is employed as Lecturer in Criminology.

Kevin Haines has just taken up a post as Professor of Criminology in Trinidad and Tobago. Formerly he was professor of Youth Justice in the Department of Criminology at Swansea University. Kevin has published extensively on youth justice and children’s rights issues. He co- authored the seminal texts Young people and youth justice; Understanding youth offending: Risk factor research, policy and practice and Positive youth justice: Children first, offenders second. Until his move to Trinidad and Tobago Kevin fulfilled a number of advisory positions including Hwb Doeth, the Youth Justice Board Cymru’s Practice Development Panel.

Katherine S. Williams is Professor of Criminology in the University of South Wales (UK), she was previously at Aberystwyth University. She is also Director of the Welsh Centre for Crime and Social Justice, a HEFCW funded initiative which brings together researchers across seven Welsh universities and builds links with both policy and practice. Recent research has revolved around the criminal justice service in rural areas (particularly the Youth Justice Service and the Police) and the treatment of women and young people who offend (evaluation of initiatives for diverting women and young people out of the official criminal justice system). She is involved in a seminal piece of research which is funded by Leverhulme and will discover the way in which the voluntary sector is adapting to the mixed economy of resettlement of offenders. Amongst other advisory positions Kate sits on Hwb Doeth, the Youth Justice Board Cymru’s Practice Development Panel.

Abbreviations

ASBO Anti-Social Behaviour Order AWYOS All Wales Youth Offending Strategy 2004 CAMHS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service DTO Detention and Training Order ETE Education, Training and Employment IF Intensive Fostering IOM Integrated Offender Management ISS Intensive Supervision and Surveillance (post 2009, can be a condition of a YRO) ISSP Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme LAC Looked after children LASPO Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 MAPPA Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements NOMS National Offender Management Service PNC Police National Computer PPO Prolific and other Priority Offender SCH Secure Children’s Home STC Secure Training Centre UNCRC United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 WYJAP Wales Youth Justice Advisory Panel YJB Youth Justice Board YOI Youth Offending Institution YOT Youth Offending Team YRO Youth Rehabilitation Order

Table of Contents

Executive summary ...... v 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Aims of the research ...... 1 1.2 Research questions ...... 2 2. Background to the study ...... 3 2.1 The Welsh context ...... 4 2.1.1 Policy and legal framework – child-centred, rights-led ...... 5 2.1.2 Youth justice practice in Wales ...... 14 3. Reviewing the literature ...... 17 3.1 Theories about young people’s ‘prolific’ offending ...... 17 3.1.1 Labelling – the effects of social reactions ...... 18 3.1.2 Social bonds and social control ...... 18 3.1.3 Social learning and social ecology ...... 19 3.1.4 Developmental and life-course perspectives ...... 19 3.1.5 Risk/needs paradigm ...... 21 3.2 Why young people stop offending – ‘desistance’ theory ...... 22 3.2.1 Motivation ...... 23 3.2.2 Engagement ...... 26 3.2.3 Relationship ...... 29 3.2.4 Identity ...... 31 4. Methodology ...... 36 4.1 A narrative approach ...... 36 4.2 An interpretivist, interactionist framework ...... 37 4.3 Methods ...... 38 4.3.1 Snapshot of the ‘prolific’ cohort in 2009-10 ...... 38 4.3.2 Data collection ...... 39 4.3.3 Data analysis ...... 44 5. Findings: YOT workers and managers ...... 45 5.1 What does ‘prolific’ offending mean? ...... 45 5.2 What happens to these young people into adulthood? ...... 46

5.3 Characteristics of this ‘prolific’ group ...... 47 5.4 Things that tend to exacerbate young people’s offending ...... 49 5.5 Things that help these young people reduce their offending ...... 51 5.6 Strengths-based work, recognising young people’s ‘successes’ ...... 55 5.7 YOT workers not knowing what to do ...... 56 5.8 YOT managers on how to respond to ‘prolific’ young people ...... 57 5.9 Changes in responding to/working with the ‘prolific’ group ...... 60 5.10 YOT managers on the Children First, Offenders Second philosophy ...... 61 5.11 Supporting young people’s transitions ...... 62 6. Findings: the young people ...... 65 6.1 Reoffending among the sample ...... 66 6.1.1 Offending years ‒ from first police contact to last recorded offence ...... 68 6.1.2 Sustaining gaps in offending ...... 69 6.2 Case studies ...... 71 6.2.1 ‘Alis’, ‘Aron and ‘Bryn’ – a ‘pro-criminal’ family (Bryn, Asset) ...... 71 6.2.2 ‘Caio’ – ‘a monster on paper’ ...... 79 6.2.3 ‘Huw’ – ‘dependency’ on the YOT (Asset note) ...... 85 6.2.4 ‘Ioan’ and ‘Lewys’ – a chaotic, ‘deprived household’ (Ioan, Asset) ...... 88 6.2.5 ‘Morgan’ – ‘abject poverty … and day-to-day uncertainty’ (Asset) ...... 92 6.2.6 ‘Rhydian’ – ‘a horrendous childhood’ (YW18) ...... 95 6.3 Interviews – The voices of young people six years on ...... 96 6.3.1 ‘Dylan’ and ‘Gareth’ (aged 22) ...... 96 6.3.2 ‘Elis’ (aged 23) ...... 98 6.3.3 ‘Rhydian’ (aged 21) ...... 100 6.4 Themes emerging from the young people’s stories ...... 101 6.4.1 Transition ...... 102 6.4.2 Identity ...... 103 6.4.3 Desire ...... 106 6.5 Typology of the young people in the cohort ...... 108 6.5.1 ‘Anti-authority’ ...... 109 6.5.2 ‘Out of control’ ...... 111 6.5.3 ‘Every now and then’ ...... 115 7. Summing up the findings ...... 117

7.1 Understanding young people’s prolific offending ...... 117 7.1.1 Understanding ‘prolific’ and ‘persistent’ offending ...... 117 7.1.2 Measuring ‘prolific’ and ‘persistent’ offending ...... 117 7.2 Why it’s hard to stay out of trouble...... 118 7.2.1 Young people’s lives ...... 119 7.2.2 Obstacles to effective work with young people ...... 122 7.3 Helping young people stay out of trouble, for good ...... 124 7.3.1 Young people and change ...... 124 7.3.2 Effective YOT work ...... 126 8. Conclusions and recommendations ...... 131 8.1 Key findings ...... 132 8.2 Implications for practice ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 8.3 Limitations of the data ...... 140 8.4 Recommendations ...... 141 References ...... 143 Appendix 1: Changes in reoffending since 2009 ...... 154 Appendix 2: Characteristics of the sample ...... 156 Appendix 3: Asset domains 9 to 12 ...... 159 Appendix 4: YOT staff interviewed ...... 161

iii

List of tables

Table 1 Reductions in reoffending across YOTs in the sample (Appendix 1) ...... 144 Table 2 Summary of disposals for young people who offend in Wales ...... 9 Table 3 Disposals received by YP in Wales, by age and gender, 2013-14 ...... 11 Table 4 Disposals received by YP in Wales, by age and gender, 2009-10 ...... 12 Table 5 Type of reoffending data gathered across ten YOTs ...... 41 Table 6 Asset domains 9 to 12 (Appendix 3) ...... 149 Table 7 YOT staff interviewed (Appendix 4) ...... 151 Table 8 Young people whose last offence was prior to (or up to) mid-2013 ...... 69 List of figures

Figure 1 Main types of disposal received by young people in Wales, 2013-14 ...... 11 Figure 2 Proportion of disposal type, by tier, given to young people in Wales, 2013-14 ...... 13 Figure 3 Proportion of disposal type, by tier, given to YP in Wales, 2009-10 ...... 13 Figure 4 Characteristics of the ‘prolific’ young men ...... 37 Figure 5 Characteristics of the ‘prolific’ young women ...... 37 Figures 6-14 Selected characteristics of the 2009-10 sample (Appendix 2) ...... 146 Figure 15 Archived case files at a YOT ...... 42 Figure 16 Blackboard in the foyer of a YOT ...... 55 Figure 17 Current age of the original sample ...... 64 Figure 18 Volume of reoffending among the young people ...... 66 Figure 19 Lengths of young people’s offending record, females ...... 67 Figure 20 Length of young people’s offending record, males ...... 68 Figure 21 Alis, Aron and Bryn’s family relationships ...... 71 Figure 22 Offending by Alis, Aron and Bryn ...... 77 Figure 23 ‘Caio’ – offending, referral order and escalating statutory disposals ...... 78 Figure 24 ‘Huw’– offending and custodial outcomes ...... 86 Figure 25 Asset section ‘What do YOU think? – Huw’s responses at age 18 ...... 87 Figure 26 ‘Morgan’ – Number of offences, custody and intensive supervision ...... 91 Figure 27 Typology of prolific offending ...... 107 Figure 28 Example of an ASBO flyer ...... 113 Figure 29 Elements of effective work with young people ...... 126

Executive summary

This report offers in-depth empirical findings based on a twelve-month research project into the underlying nature and social context of ‘prolific’ or high-volume offending by young people in Wales, UK. The research was commissioned by the Welsh Centre for Crime and Social Justice in partnership with the Youth Justice Board (YJB) Cymru. This largely qualitative study builds on earlier work by YJB Cymru (2012) focused on a small proportion of young people involved in a large amount of crime.

In 2012, working with the Welsh Government, YJB Cymru set out to profile young people deemed prolific in their offending, identifying those who in 2009 had already been convicted of 25 or more offences and who reoffended during 2010. This group comprised 303 individuals of which 117 cases were examined. The profiles were based on case assessments and local data provided by Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) across Wales. The information gathered on these 117 cases provided the starting point for this research.

Background

In 2009-10, there were 7,646 young people involved in the youth justice system across Wales. The average reoffending rate among this group was 32.8%. Among the prolific group (around 4% of the larger cohort) the reoffending rate was found to be two and a half times higher, at 81.5%. In 2010 alone, these 303 young people committed a further 1,108 offences between them, or an average of 3.66 offences each. In terms of gender, race and age this group was overwhelmingly male, identified as white British, and aged between 15 and 17 years.

In 2013-14, the number of young people in the youth justice system across Wales had fallen to 2,605. As the YJB reports (2015) however, ‘the average number of previous offences per offender in the cohort has risen every year since 2006/07 … [which] suggests that Youth Offending Teams are working with a smaller, but generally more prolific cohort’ (p.56).

Aims

This study has three broad aims:

1) To understand, given the reduction in young people’s offending overall, why the numbers of young people involved in prolific offending has not decreased in the same way and why it appears so hard to reduce offending by this group;

2) To gain insight into offending narratives at different developmental stages to understand what happens to young people involved in prolific offending into adulthood; and

3) To give practitioners a better understanding of effective ways of working with young people involved in prolific offending to help them to move away from offending behaviour and towards more pro-social identities and lifestyles.

Methodology

An interactionist, interpretive perspective framed the narrative approach to this research. Eight of the ten YOTs from the earlier profiling work (YJB Cymru, 2012) were revisited and 103 case

files of the original sample of 117 were located. The study’s mixed methods included qualitative case file analysis and case studies, quantitative reoffending data analysis, a focus group with YJB Cymru staff and in-depth interviews with YOT workers, YOT managers and some of the (now) young adults from the original cohort, both in custody and in the community. Narrative analysis was used to make sense of the qualitative data and to draw out common and conflicting themes, to help address the research questions, which were:

1. How and why do young people become involved in prolific offending? 2. What happens to young people with histories of prolific offending as they move into adulthood? 3. How, if at all, do the narratives of young people involved in prolific offending vary over time? And what do these narratives reveal about the young person’s sense of themselves and their offending behaviours? 4. What factors in a young person’s experience are most likely to promote, foster or support their building of a positive and sustainable pro-social identity? (i.e. what happens in young people’s lives that helps to reduce their offending?) 5. What characterises interventions that are most likely to promote, foster or support the process of developing a positive and sustainable pro-social lifestyle? (i.e. what type of work with young people helps to reduce their offending?)

Given the aim to understand the patterns and narratives associated with young people’s prolific offending, and what can help them move towards more positive social identities, the voices of young people and those who work with them feature strongly throughout the report. All quotes are in italics and the source is referenced as follows:

 ‘YW’ for YOT workers interviewed (e.g. YW02);  ‘YM’ for YOT managers (e.g. YM04);  ‘B’ or ‘G’ for boys or girls (with a number, e.g. B6, G8) whose case files were analysed; the quotes are from Asset records and notes written by workers about the young people;  Welsh names are used for the young people in the case studies and interviews. Case study quotes are workers’ words, comments and assessments taken verbatim from case file records. The voices of the four young men interviewed are reproduced in their direct quotes.

The main findings:

This study sheds light on the nature of offending deemed ‘prolific’, the ways that ‘prolific’ young people are constructed in terms of vulnerability and risk, and how and why children and young people become involved in and move away from high-volume, persistent and/or frequent anti- social, risky and harmful behaviours. It offers insights into the most effective ways of working to interrupt such offending patterns and to support young people’s transitions to more positive, pro- social futures. This emphasis on processes of youth-adult transition – rather than ‘non-offending’ as a singular destination – is distinct from much of the desistance literature, which is focused on adults and therefore tends to marginalise young people’s experience. The main findings include:

Prolific offending has different dimensions

The term ‘prolific offending’ was understood to mean different things and was seen overall as vague and not particularly useful. According to the youth justice professionals interviewed, it comprises four distinct dimensions:

 Volume – the total number of offences for which a young person is charged/convicted  Persistence – the length of time (i.e. years) over which offending occurs  Frequency – the number of offences within a certain time frame (e.g. a year)  Seriousness – both high level and low level

These categories also mask significant heterogeneity between individuals however: some young people commit a high number of offences within a short period in response to particular traumatic events, stressors or disruptions in their lives; their offending may be episodic, perhaps frequent, but not necessarily persistent. Some young people react to long-term disadvantage and underlying trauma in their lives through persistent offending, either of a low-level ‘anti-social’ nature or more serious harmful behaviours; some is persistent but not frequent, some is both frequent and persistent and escalating in seriousness over time. These are the young people seen as most likely to become entrenched in the adult justice system, particularly where their behaviours coincide with serious substance misuse. Notwithstanding these variations, generally the group characterised as prolific in their offending were seen as persistent over time, their behaviour a manifestation of complex, chaotic and difficult life circumstances often overlaid by the misuse of alcohol and other substances.

Prolific offending has different drivers and ‘types’

Different drivers were identified for young people’s high-volume offending, whether sustained (i.e. persistent but not necessarily frequent) or episodic (i.e. frequent within a certain period but not necessarily persistent), as summarised in Fig. 27, below. Sustained patterns of high-volume offending (both more and less serious) were associated with young people a) being ‘anti authority’, that is with entrenched pro-criminal cultures, norms and values, or b) being ‘out of control’, reflecting pervasive and complex underlying needs, trauma and/or emotional distress. Episodic patterns of high-volume offending were linked to young people ‘every now and then’ responding to crises, ruptures and difficulties in their lives.

Figure 27 Typology of prolific offending Sustained • Being 'anti-authority': the rebel, the entrepreneur (persistent) • Being 'out of control': the pest, the resigned, the seeker

Episodic ('bursts' of • 'Every now and then' reacting to ruptures or stressors: frequent offending) in care, in crisis

These different dimensions help us understand young people’s offending in terms of time and the spaces in between their offending. These ‘gaps’ in offending need to be the focus of effective work to bring about positive change in young people’s lives.

Why it’s hard to stay out of trouble

Many young people’s lives are characterised in terms of significant ‘absences’ (YW02, interview), accumulated disadvantage, and their ‘struggle with themselves’ (YW10, interview), their emerging social identity. Workers interviewed highlighted the normal aspects of teenage behaviours associated with ‘boundary pushing … and adventuring’ (YW02), yet also how these can become problematic when combined with the experience of multiple and complex disadvantage. In addition, systemic and structural obstacles to effective work include the nature of interactions

vii

with the justice system and with other services and agencies, as well as the way young people tend to be constructed in terms of risk and vulnerability, failure or success.

Helping young people stay out of trouble, for good

The data revealed things that helped reduce young people’s offending and that characterised effective work by YOTs and other agencies in supporting young people to move away from crime. These things came out of reoffending data, interviews with YOT workers and managers, the nine case studies, and the young men who were interviewed who gave insight into the things that helped them to stay out of trouble when they were younger and now looking back on their younger selves. These things fell under three broad themes: stability, a ‘home’; maturing, growing up; and supporting young people’s positive identity development.

Elements of effective practice

Effective work with young people demands a flexible, strengths-based approach, based on stable and respectful relationships and a deep understanding of the young person’s needs, hopes, desires, strengths and interests. To effectively engage a young person, and to be able to fully and holistically assess their human needs – not just their ‘offending-related’ or ‘criminogenic needs’ – a critical aspect is to involve young people, to give them a say in the work being done with them. In sum, effective YOT practice comprises these five main elements: trusting relationship; clear consistent boundaries; involving young people; workers’ persistence; and a positive focus on young people’s strengths and the ‘gaps’ between offending.

Recommendations

1) ‘Prolific offending’ is not a useful term – it needs to differentiate between distinct dimensions that reflect very different patterns of behaviour:

 Volume – how much?  Persistence – how long?  Frequency – how often?  Seriousness – how serious?

2) Young people involved in high-volume, high-frequency and/or persistent offending are different and have different needs.

Any intervention with a young person must be underpinned and informed by a deep understanding of these needs. This understanding is best developed over time and through relational work with the young person.

3) Effective work with young people involved in high-volume and/or persistent offending is characterised by these key elements:

 Relationships – trust, belief, respect, listening  Boundaries – consistent support, clear expectations, flexible boundaries  Involving young people – giving them a voice, engaging young people in things that matter to them, helping them to adhere to boundaries and expectations  Persistence – ‘sticking with them’, not taking it personally  A positive, future-oriented focus on young people’s strengths

viii

These elements comprise a flexible, creative, holistic approach that avoids a narrow focus on risk. This relationship-based, strengths-based focus is more important that offending-specific work for bringing about lasting change in young people’s view of themselves.

4) The different dimensions, drivers and ‘types’ of offending need to be taken into account when determining the most appropriate way of working with a young person.

5) Reducing young people’s offending involves supporting their transitions towards a more positive sense of themselves and the future.

Changes in young people’s lives that lead to reductions in their offending (and in the factors that lead to their offending) are best understood as transitions to a positive, pro-social way of life. This involves a gradual process of positive identity development. Such transitions are inherently fragile states of being, during which young people need support and assistance.

Young people’s transitions to pro-social lives are comprised of the ‘gaps’ or spaces in between their offending, and the small successes they achieve and accumulate gradually, over time. Supporting these transitions involves focusing on the gaps between offending, recognising and celebrating the small successes that young people achieve and, to enable these to accumulate, persisting with them over time.

7) Young people’s transitions – including the transition to a life away from offending – must be understood and supported in the context of young people’s lives.

Young people’s lives do change, often in unexpected ways. Focusing on the gaps in offending encourages a strengths-based way of working that seeks to identify and build on positive aspects of young people’s lives and experiences. This means working in relationship with a young person, in their social and community context (i.e. avoiding ‘individualisation’), to support their gradual transitions towards hope, confidence, and a positive future.

1. Introduction

This research is focused on young people in Wales with histories of ‘prolific’ offending, that is, young people who have been convicted of more than 25 separate offences between the ages of 10 and 17 years1. While the overall number of young people in contact with the justice system has shrunk significantly2 – an effect attributable in part to the implementation of diversionary practices based on YJB3 Cymru and the Welsh Government’s ‘children first, offenders second’ policy and reflecting similar shrinkage across the UK – the number deemed ‘prolific’ in their offending has remained steady. One reason may be that this ‘small proportion [who] reoffend very frequently … are not well covered by existing interventions’ (Ministry of Justice 2010: 13). This raises several questions: What are the particular characteristics of these young people? What is the social context of their offending? What individual and social factors have a causal effect on their behaviour and how do these factors interact with each other? What factors and/or interventions have a positive impact on reducing the severity and frequency of their offending, and why? These are the questions driving this research.

This is a largely qualitative study aimed at understanding how and why young people in Wales become involved in prolific offending, the nature and extent of that offending, and the shape of its trajectory over time. It seeks to explore how young people themselves view their offending behaviour and to gain insight into offending narratives at different developmental stages. In 2012, YJB Cymru (working with the Welsh Government) set out to profile young people deemed prolific in their offending, identifying those who in 2009 had already been convicted of 25 or more offences and who reoffended during 2010. This group comprised 303 individuals of which 117 cases were examined. The profiles were based on case assessments and local data provided by Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) across Wale (YJB Cymru, 2012). The information gathered on these 117 cases provided the starting point for this research.

The preliminary objective was to return to those 117 cases, drill down into their detail, and examine follow up data to build a picture of what those young people were doing six years later. An additional aim was to discover what these young people might say about themselves. Would they identify as ‘prolific offenders’ and what might that label mean to them? What might their self-narratives reveal about their offending trajectories? Could any insight into sustaining or attenuating factors be gained from such narratives? One way of finding out was to ask the young people (now young adults) themselves. Further insights were sought through interviews with YOT workers who had worked closely with this group. These questions and ideas shaped the research design and its process. 1.1 Aims of the research

This study has three broad aims:

1 This is the definition of ‘prolific offending’ used in this study. Definitional issues are explored below. 2 In 2013-14 there were 2,605 young people in the youth justice system in Wales, down from 7,646 in 2009- 10 (www.gov.uk/government/collections/youth-justice-statistics). 3 YJB Cymru is a Directorate of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB), an executive non- departmental public body that oversees the youth justice system in England and Wales.

2) To gain insight into offending narratives at different developmental stages to understand what happens to young people involved in prolific offending into adulthood; and

The research seeks to provide an explanatory account of a small group of young people in Wales who are involved in high-volume offending, with high rates of reoffending and who risk becoming persistent in their offending. It draws together youth justice policy narratives, practitioners’ perspectives and the statistics, and stories of young people identified as ‘prolific’ in their offending into a detailed, nuanced and multi-layered story. By tracing the trajectories of this group of young people and examining factors linked to their offending it adds to important empirical work in criminology. At the local and practical level, it aims to provide insights into the existing strengths and limitations of youth justice policy and practice in Wales, and to stimulate thinking about how strategies for working most effectively to interrupt patterns of prolific offending and to promote positive outcomes for young people may be developed and implemented. 1.2 Research questions

These aims are captured in the following research questions:

2. Background to the study

In 2009-10, there were 7,646 young people in the youth justice system across Wales (YJB 2011). The average binary rate of reoffending among this cohort was 32.8% (the number of reoffenders divided by the total number of young people in the cohort), with a frequency rate of 0.93 (the number of re-offenses divided by the number in the cohort). The earlier YJB Cymru (2012) project identified 303 young people – just under 4% of the total youth justice cohort – who had been convicted of 25 or more offences. In 2010, these 303 young people committed a further 1,108 offences, indicating a binary reoffending rate among this group of 81.5% and a frequency rate of 3.66. In terms of gender, race and age, the cohort was overwhelmingly white, male and aged between 15 and 17 years: 89% were young men and 11% young women, of which only five identified as other than ‘white British’; nine out of ten of the boys were 15-17 years old. Their most common offences were public order, non-serious violence, theft and criminal malicious damage, followed by burglary and drug offences.

In terms of age, race and gender, the 117 cases in the original sample reflected similar characteristics to the broader prolific offending cohort, 85% of which were male, 15% female; 99% were white British; 92% were aged 15 to 17 years. Profiling the ‘prolific’ group using case file data and Asset records showed a range of factors associated with these young people’s offending behaviour. From these findings a detailed (although restricted, see Case and Haines 2009) picture of the issues connected to these young people has begun to emerge. Work remains to be done, however. Questions have arisen from that earlier work, such as:

 What has happened to the young people in the earlier cohort?  Does a follow-up picture of reoffending among this group reflect increases or decreases in their offending behaviour?  What can their stories reveal about the processes of continued criminal acts or a change to pro-social lifestyles?  And what impact, if any, have youth justice and/or probation interventions had in the lives of young people with prolific offending histories?

A shared desire on the part of YJB Cymru and the Welsh Centre for Crime and Social Justice to learn more about these issues forms the basis and rationale for the current research.

This study is about prolific offending by young people in Wales. Wales (or ‘Cymru’ in Welsh) is a country (part of the United Kingdom) that contains around three million of the UK’s approximately 65 million people; as across the UK, 30% of the population is aged under 25 (StatsWales4 2014). As children under the age of 10 years cannot be held criminally responsible, ‘young people’ are defined as 10 to 17 year olds (Crime and Disorder Act (CDA) 1998, UK). The unique context of devolution in Wales means that the Welsh Government holds devolved power in areas affecting young people (crime prevention, community safety, education, health, families and social welfare), but not specifically over youth justice; justice powers remain with the UK Government. The implications of the Welsh context for how young people are conceptualised and responded to are explored further below (see also: Haines 2009).

Prolific offending is a contested term: ‘[t]here is no national [UK-wide] definition of a prolific offender’ (HM Prison Service, 2004: 4); local criteria tend to focus on ‘the volume of crime

4 https://statswales.wales.gov.uk

[individuals] are committing and the impact on their local community’ (p.4). The term ‘prolific offending’ is thus interpreted variously in different settings for different purposes. Indeed, ‘prolific’ and ‘persistent’ are frequently conflated or used interchangeably despite having quite discrete connotations: of volume and continuity respectively5. This is an important distinction to acknowledge as it highlights different ways in which offending and ‘offenders’ may be categorised, which has significant implications for further categorisation and targeting of young people for youth justice intervention which, in turn, has implications for their diversion from or entrenchment in the youth and adult justice systems. Indeed, some argue that labels such a ‘prolific offenders’ can reveal as much about patterns of convictions as about offending (Garside 2004; Rowe and Soppitt, 2014). Nonetheless, ‘[h]owever they may be defined … the fact is that relatively few offenders commit a large proportion of all crime’ (Home Office, 2004: 7). And, as the life-course literature suggests, the earlier a child begins offending, the more likely a young person’s criminality will continue into adulthood – although this may have as much or more to do with system contact than with individual characteristics (see, McAra and McVie 2013).

The transition of young people into the adult prison population is of particular concern in light of evidence that for males under 20 years with more than ten previous (adult) offences the rate of reimprisonment within two years of release is as high as 96% (Home Office, 2004: 7). Through the twin processes of institutionalisation6 and the ‘serial depletion of resources’ (Baldry et al, 2003) the risk of return to custody increases with each experience of imprisonment and the cycle of reoffending is reinforced. Thus, the overlap between prolific and persistent offending becomes clear. The rationale for focusing on young people with prolific offending histories is to build deeper understanding of the early stages of this prolific to persistent trajectory in the Welsh context. For the purposes of this study, in line with YJB Cymru and the Welsh Government’s definition (YJB Cymru, 2012), young people are identified as having a prolific offending history if they have been convicted of 25 or more offences between the ages of 10 and 17 years.

In sum, this study’s focus on prolific offending arises out of a concern to understand the behaviour of the small group of young people seen as responsible for committing a disproportionately high number of offences. Further, to understand how and why these young people become entrenched in such behaviours and, if they find pathways out of offending, how that process occurs. The indirect focus of the study thus emerges as a study of moving from anti-social to pro-social behaviour: if it occurs, how, when and why; and if not, why not? This focus has shaped the review of literature for the study. 2.1 The Welsh context

The number of young people coming into contact with the youth justice system in Wales, as in England, has declined significantly over the last decade, with the numbers of children in custody dropping most dramatically since 2008 (Bateman 2012). A snapshot of youth offending in 2013- 14 shows there were 2,605 young people involved with YOTs across Wales, a considerable drop from 7,646 in 2009-10 (YJB 2011; YJB 2015; YJB Cymru,2012). The year before, following the removal of a UK government quota scheme to which young people were especially susceptible – the ‘offences brought to justice’ target – the first dramatic decrease in ‘first time entrants’ (FTE) to the system occurred in 2008-09 (Bateman 2013; Thomas 2015). While the number of young

5 Gray et al. (2005:4) highlight similar definitional ambiguity associated with the term ‘persistence’. 6 This includes the psychological and developmental ‘deep freeze’ effect of imprisonment (e.g. Zamble and Porporino, 1990, 2013; Gendreau, Goggin and Cullen, 1999)

people entering the youth justice system has fallen and the number of re-offences has dropped (by between 26% and 85% across the YOTs in the sample, see Table 1: Appendix 1), the average number of previous offences per young person has risen every year since 2006/077 (YJB 2015: 27) and the number of young people sentenced for indictable offences with at least 15 previous offences has also increased (YJB, 2013: 24 and Chapters 9 and 10; YJB, 2015: 13 and Chapter 10). These figures suggest that young people being sentenced before the courts are more prolific in their offending history and that YOTs are working with a smaller but generally more prolific and complex cohort8 (YJB 2013: 52; YJB 2015: 27). This increased concentration of young people with very complex needs is sometimes referred to in rather pejorative terms as the ‘thickening of the soup’ (Michael9 2014; Carlile 2014; Brewster 2015). More important than its overtones, however, are the implications of this phenomenon for policy and practice. Given that these young people have always been in the system, as Lord Carlile (2014: 6) points out, their concentration highlights some ‘long-standing deficiencies in the youth justice system’ as well as ‘an opportunity to better focus resources on addressing such challenges’ as meeting the needs of this complex cohort of children.

2.1.1 Policy and legal framework – child-centred, rights-led

Youth justice practice in Wales has been shaped by its particular legal and policy context. While responsibility for criminal justice formally rests with the UK Government, since 1999 the devolution of powers to the Welsh Assembly in the areas of crime prevention, community safety, education, health, housing, substance misuse and the needs of ‘looked after children’ (LAC) has meant that ‘almost all the services on which YOTs have to rely for their direct functioning, and in order to carry out their responsibilities, lie under the control of the Assembly’ (Drakeford, 2010: 140). This devolved context has created the space for a uniquely Welsh approach to youth justice to develop in a process that has been characterised as the ‘dragonisation’ of youth justice (Haines, 2009). Within this ‘negotiated’ space (Drakeford, 2010: 140), much work with young people who offend is carried out according to the ‘children first, offenders second’ principle, set out in the All Wales Youth Offending Strategy (YJB Cymru, 2004) and the more recent Children and Young People First (YJB Cymru, 2014). These strategic documents exemplify the negotiations to which Drakeford (2010) refers (see also: Haines and Case 2015).

The All Wales Youth Offending Strategy (AWYOS, YJB Cymru, 2004), for instance, was the result of the Welsh Government, YJB Cymru and local agencies working together to develop a national framework for preventing offending and re-offending among children and young people in Wales. This work, underpinned by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989) and its requirement for consideration of the rights of the young person, set out the principle that ‘young people should be treated as children first and offenders second’ (AWYOS, YJB Cymru, 2004: 3). Another key principle, ‘ensuring the universal entitlement is extended to all children and young people’ (p.3) is intended to provide for the wellbeing of all children in Wales via equal access to health, education, support and opportunities to succeed, including to those made vulnerable to offending by social and economic disadvantage. This principle specifically refers to the ten

7 Because of the declining cohort of young people drawn into the formal justice system. 8 This is not to say that YOTs are working with fewer children and young people per se, but that the number of young people on statutory orders is smaller and they are seen to have more complex needs. 9 In evidence to the House of Commons Justice Committee (2014), Rt. Hon. Alun Michael, Police and Crime Commissioner for South Wales, referred to the local authorities’ and YOTs’ use of this term, ‘that I do not think is terribly attractive’ but which means ‘those who can be diverted out of crime are being diverted, which leaves you with a residue of much more difficult cases from more difficult backgrounds, much more embedded … in a culture of offending, which … need to be tackled’ (HC 307, 2014: Ev13).

entitlements of young people aged up to 25 to have their needs met in a way that is safe and accessible and characterised by:

• a positive focus on achievement overall and what young people have to contribute; • a focus on building young people’s capacity to become independent, make choices, and participate in the democratic process; and • celebration of young people’s successes. (AWYOS, YJB Cymru, 2004: 16)

The Welsh Government and YJB Cymru have established a formal working agreement that includes:

 a joint youth justice strategy and delivery plan for Wales;  collaborative monitoring of youth justice outcome information;  joint governance and oversight of youth justice delivery;  exchange of relevant information;  collaboration in pursuit of effective and innovative practice;  jointly appointed and funded staff; and  reciprocal advice on the interface between devolved and non-devolved policy.

The Wales Youth Justice Advisory Panel (WYJAP) was jointly convened to assist the Welsh Government and the YJB implement policies to prevent offending and reoffending by children and young people in Wales. The Panel’s Terms of Reference (2011) outline its functions, including:

 to act as a formal strategic reference group for the Welsh Government’s change programme to improve services to children and young people made vulnerable by offending;  to provide advice to the Welsh Government on targets and objectives for the delivery of services related to youth justice;  to oversee the YJB’s work to achieve its strategic objectives; and  to act as a strategic stakeholder reference group for YJB change initiatives in Wales.

Key events shaping policy in Wales

The following timeline10 outlines key events that have shaped and influenced the broader policy context within which the work of the YOTs is carried out in Wales, beginning with the UNCRC.

1989 The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is ratified. The Convention has 54 articles that set out the rights to which all children everywhere are entitled. Articles 43- 45 explain how adults and governments must work together to make sure all children can enjoy all their rights. Articles 1-42 set out how children should be treated: for example, Article 3 states that children’s best interests should always be a primary consideration, and Article 37 limits custody to the shortest possible time.

1991 The UK Government formally agrees to ensure that every child in the UK has all the rights listed in the UNCRC11.

10 This timeline uses Bateman and Hazel’s (2014) Youth Justice Timeline as a starting point (available online: http://www.beyondyouthcustody.net/policy/youth-justice-timeline/). 11 Every 5 years the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child reviews progress made by the UK State Party (the governments of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) towards protecting these rights. The fifth UK report was submitted in May 2014.

1998 The Crime and Disorder Act (England and Wales) introduces the principal aim for youth justice as being the prevention of offending. It establishes multi-agency youth offending teams and a range of orders. Doli incapax for children under 14 is abolished.

1998 The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is established following the Crime and Disorder Act. The new body is responsible for monitoring and promoting good practice. In April 2000 it also takes responsibility for commissioning custodial places.

1999 Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs12) are introduced. These civil court orders are disproportionately received by children, imposing restrictions for sub-criminal behaviour. Breaching is a criminal offence punishable by custody.

2000 The first set of national standards specific to youth justice is introduced by the YJB, defining the minimum required level of service provision from agencies. Funding is conditional on related key performance targets.

2000 The Care Standards Act 2000 provides for an arm of the National Assembly for Wales to be the regulatory body for social care and private and voluntary healthcare services (‘care services’) in Wales.

2000 The detention and training order (DTO) replaces detention in a young offender institution and the secure training order. Sentences of four to 24 months are served half in custody and half on community licence with YOT coordinated resettlement support.

2001 The intensive supervision and surveillance programme (ISSP) is piloted as a rigorous community alternative to custody for persistent offenders. Rolled out in 2003, an ISSP can be a condition of bail, an order or a post-custody licence condition.

2002 Presumption of early release is introduced for children serving DTOs (except in certain circumstances), subject to an electronically monitored curfew. Release one or two months early means longer community licence resettlement.

2002 Justice Munby rules that children in custodial institutions are entitled to the same mainstream services that most children in the community receive; they are still protected by the Children Act 1989 and human rights legislation.

2003 The Criminal Justice Act (largely England and Wales) introduces indeterminate and extended custodial sentences for public protection. It stipulates that all previous convictions should be treated as aggravating unless it is unreasonable to treat them as such.

2004 The Children Act (largely England and Wales) extends safeguarding duties to criminal justice agencies. It stipulates greater cooperation between youth offending teams and child protection services and underlines the safeguarding duties of custodial institutions.

2004 The Welsh Government adopts the UNCRC as the basis for policy-making for children and young people in Wales. The All Wales Youth Offending Strategy (AWYOS, YJB Cymru, 2004) provides a national framework for preventing children’s offending and re-offending in Wales.

2008 The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (largely England and Wales) replaces all existing community orders with the youth rehabilitation order (YRO), addressing reoffending risk

12 The ASBO was replaced with the injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance (IPNA) and the criminal behaviour order (CBO) under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

through an individualised intervention package. Requirements for courts to balance the prevention of offending with welfare remain unimplemented.

2008 Statutory alternatives to custody are also introduced by the Act, by attaching intensive supervision and surveillance or intensive fostering (IF) to a youth rehabilitation order. Courts must justify not imposing an alternative when sentencing a child to custody.

2009 Welsh Youth Justice Indicators are agreed by YJB Cymru, the Welsh Government and YOT Managers Cymru to measure engagement in education, training or employment (ETE), access to substance misuse services, and access to appropriate accommodation for young people involved with youth justice.

2009 Welsh Government and YJB Cymru published their All Wales Youth Offending Strategy – Delivery Plan 2009-11.

2009 A NACRO report (2009) Youth Justice and Participation in Wales aims to support the work of the Welsh Government and YJB, in partnership with the voluntary sector and criminal justice agencies, to embed the consultation and participation of children and young people in the youth justice system in Wales. It aims to help YOTs think about how the principle of participation as described in Article 12 of the UNCRC should inform their work with children and young people.

2009 A report to the Welsh Government by Professor Rod Morgan on the Devolution of Youth Justice Responsibilities is focused on the benefits and risks involved in devolving youth justice to the Welsh Assembly Government.

2010 The Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010 places a duty on Welsh National Assembly Ministers to pay due regard to the UNCRC in developing policy, and legal duties on Local Health Boards and Local Authorities in relation to access to mental health assessment, treatment and advocacy services.

2011 The Terms of Reference for the Wales Youth Justice Advisory Panel outline the Panel’s functions in helping the Welsh Government and YJB implement policies to reduce offending by young people in Wales.

2012 The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) devolves remand custody costs to local authorities. It also allows courts to conditionally discharge young people, allows repeated referral orders and restricts the scope of public protection sentences. The LASPO Act removes the ‘escalator’ approach and allows young people to be dealt with appropriately according to the offence(s) committed.

2013 The Welsh Government announces the introduction of a Prevention of Offending by Young People (Wales) Bill, with three main aims: 1) to prevent children and young people from reoffending and progressing through the system into custody; 2) to provide better support for those young people who are sentenced to custody; and 3) to create multiagency resettlement partnerships to ensure better support when they finish with the YOT or leave custody. This legislative proposal has not been progressed to date.

2014 The Welsh Youth Justice Indicators are updated by the YJB and Welsh Government, with the support of YOT Managers Cymru, to reflect a more current and appropriate measure of practice outcomes, including a new indicator on mental health.

2014 The Welsh Government’s White Paper on the Prevention of Offending by Young People sought views on proposals to improve services for Welsh young people in the youth justice system to ensure their effective post-sentence reintegration and resettlement.

2014 Children and Young People First: Youth Justice Strategy 2014: a Welsh Government and YJB Cymru joint strategy to improve services for young people in, or at risk of becoming involved in, the youth justice system; builds on the approach and achievements delivered under the AWYOS 2004 (YJB Cymru, 2004) and its subsequent Delivery Plan 2009. The priorities are: a partnership approach; early intervention, prevention and diversion; reducing reoffending; effective use of custody; and post-sentence resettlement and reintegration.

2014 The Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act (largely England and Wales) replaces anti-social behaviour orders with injunctions for the prevention of nuisance and annoyance (civil) and criminal behaviour orders. In addition to restrictions, the new orders allow courts to impose activity requirements.

2014 The Social Services and Wellbeing (Wales) Act provides the legal framework for improving the wellbeing of people who need care and support, and carers who need support, and for providing resettlement services in Wales.

This list of key legislative and policy-shaping events sketches the policy background against which youth justice in Wales is implemented in practice. Each YOT’s work with young people who offend is determined by sentences given by the court and pre-court decisions made by the police. The range of disposals and processes to which young people may be subject is summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2 Summary of disposals and processes for young people who offend in Wales13: Disposal types and processes for children/young people (‘YP’) aged 10-17 in Wales Out-of-court processes (i.e. at police discretion and/or police working closely with the YOT) No further action • If a young person is arrested and the police do not pursue the case in court, this is known as taking ‘no further action’. Acknowledgement that prosecution is not appropriate or warranted in a particular case. Triage • An informal diversionary process that operates in partnership between the police and the YOT, mainly for first offences. • Can also apply to low gravity offending for YP who have already received a formal disposal, if the assessment indicates that diversion is the most suitable outcome. • If a YP has been through the triage process before and re-offends, an out-of- court disposal or charge will usually apply. • Triage decisions to divert the child or young person away from formal disposals are recorded by police as ‘no further action’. Bureau14 (approach to pre- • Pre-court diversionary process adopted by many YOTs across Wales. court diversion unique to • Involves a community member appointed by the YOT, police officer and case Wales, used by most YOTs manager deciding on the most appropriate out-of-court outcome. Recorded instead of Triage) by police as ‘no further action’.

13 Sources: Youth Out-of-Court Disposals Guide for Police and Youth Offending Services (YJB 2013) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/438139/out-court- disposal-guide.pdf; Use of Out of Court Disposals Section 1 Case Management Guidance (YJB 2014) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/use-out-of-court-disposals/use-out-of-court-disposals- section-1-case-management-guidance; Use Community Interventions Section 6 Case Management Guidance (YJB 2014) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/use-community-interventions/use- community-interventions-section-6-case-management-guidance; Youth justice statistics glossary (YJB 2015) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/youth-justice-annual-statistics-2013-to-2014. 14 For detailed description of the Bureau (based on the ‘Swansea Bureau’ model) see: Haines and Charles 2010; Haines et.al., 2013; also https://www.justice.gov.uk/youth-justice/effective-practice- library/swansea-bureau-children-first,-offending-second.

Community Resolution or • Resolution of a minor offence through informal agreement between the Youth Restorative Disposal parties involved; includes taking victim’s wishes into account. (YRD) introduced in 2008 • Young person’s acceptance/agreement to participate is required. (non-statutory, i.e. no formal • Best practice is for police to notify YOTs of all community resolution. • Can include restorative component, e.g. Gwent Police RJ disposal scheme. caution is imposed) Youth Caution • May be given by the police for any offence where the child or YP makes a full (replaced Police Reprimand admission, there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction following LASPO 2012) but it is not in the public interest to prosecute. • YOT is notified and determines need for assessment and intervention. • Assessment is required for second and subsequent formal disposals. • Non-compliance with voluntary interventions will inform future disposal decisions. Youth Conditional Caution • Same criteria for Youth Caution but with compulsory rehabilitative, punitive (replaced Final Warning and reparative conditions attached. following LASPO 2012) • YOT will screen and advise police on appropriate conditions to reduce risk of reoffending. YOT is responsible for monitoring compliance. • Non-compliance may result in prosecution for original offence. First-tier disposals (penalties imposed by the Court, includes bind overs and deferred sentences) Absolute Discharge • For minor offences, when the court decides someone is guilty but decides not to punish them further at this time; no more action will be taken. Conditional Discharge • The YP won't be punished unless they commit another offence within a set period of time (up to three years). Fine • The amount reflects the seriousness of the offence and the YP’s financial circumstances. • If YP under 16, parents/carers are responsible for paying the fine. Compensation Order • Can be made in cases where victim/s suffered loss or harm • The amount depends on the offence, value, injury and YP’s ability to pay • Parents responsible to pay if YP under 16 (and may also be if 16-17). Reparation Order • Requires YP to undertake reparation either directly for the victim or for the community (e.g. unpaid work or cleaning up graffiti). Referral Order • Where YP is charged with a criminal offence for the first time and pleads (first introduced in 2002; guilty the Court must pass (in most cases) a referral order. LASPO 2012 removed the • The order can be between 3 and 12 months long. limit on the number of times • If under 16, YP is required to attend a referral order panel with their parents/guardian or, if LAC, a local authority representative. a YP could have this Order • The panel comprises two community volunteers and a YOT member. imposed by a Court) • The YP agrees a contract with the panel which can include victim reparation or restitution, as well as undertaking a programme of interventions and activities to address their offending behaviour. • YP can receive a Referral Order more than once (after LASPO 2012). • Non-compliance means YP can be returned to court for resentencing. Community disposals (i.e. YP supervised by the YOT, in the community) Youth Rehabilitation Order • YRO can be up to 3 years; YP is supervised by the YOT in the community. (YRO) • The intervention level (Standard, Enhanced or Intensive) determines the (introduced at the end of minimum number of YOT contacts each month for the duration of the order. 2009) • Supervision requirements are used to address the attitudes, thinking and behaviours which have contributed to the YP’s offending.

• Can include curfews, electronic monitoring (‘tagging’), exclusions and prohibitions; can also include Intensive Supervision and Surveillance (ISS). • Other possible requirements include: activities, education, drug treatment, drug testing, residence, local authority residence, Intensive Fostering (IF), mental health treatment, or unpaid work. Custodial disposals (i.e. YP sentenced to a period of detention within the secure estate) Detention and Training Order • A custodial sentence 4 to 24 months in length, for YP aged 12 to 17. (DTO) • YP serves the first half of the sentence in custody, the second half on licence in the community under YOT supervision. • If the YP reoffends on licence s/he can be recalled to custody. • YP detained in custody either in a secure children’s home (SCH), secure training centre (STC) or young offender institution (YOI). Section 90-91 Detention • Any YP convicted of murder is sentenced under s.90.

(under the Criminal Court • The indeterminate s.91 sentence is for YP convicted of any other offence for Sentencing Act 2000) which a life sentence may be passed on an adult. Section 226-228 Detention • Under s.226-228 YP convicted of serious violent or sexual offences may be (under the Criminal Justice imprisoned for life on the grounds of public protection. Act 2003) • Allows for an indeterminate or extended sentence of detention.

The graph below (Fig. 1) shows the main disposals received by young people in Wales in 2013- 14 (not including informal diversion e.g. via Bureau, see discussion below Table 3 and 4).

Figure 1 Main types of disposal received by young people in Wales, 2013-14. 1400 1200 1000 800 600 Age 17+ 400 Age 16 200 Age 15 0 Age 10-14

The following tables show the total numbers of young people in the formal youth justice system and the types of disposals they received, by age and gender, in 2013-14 compared to 2009-10. Legislative changes since 2009, noted above, are reflected in the different types of orders available at the pre-court and community level, notably the YRO replacing a range of community orders and the replacement of the Police Reprimand and Final Warning with the Youth Caution and Youth Conditional Caution. The dramatic reduction in numbers over the five years is clear. The 2009-10 snapshot is context for the ‘prolific’ cohort in this study.

Table 3 Disposals received by young people in Wales, by age and gender, in 2013-1415 Age Gender Disposal 10-14 15 16 17+ Male Female Not TOTAL known Pre-court Youth Caution 339 244 285 335 941 261 1 1,203 Youth Conditional Caution 152 142 133 130 447 110 0 557 First-tier Absolute Discharge 4 7 10 12 5 28 0 33 Bind Over 0 1 2 1 3 1 0 33 Compensation Order 55 47 92 159 303 50 0 353 Conditional Discharge 27 28 49 114 188 30 0 218 Fine 1 11 31 98 126 15 0 141 Referral Order 109 114 154 221 494 104 0 598 Reparation Order 6 7 5 4 21 1 0 22

15 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/youth-justice-annual-statistics-2013-to-2014

Community Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO) 76 107 173 249 523 82 0 605 Custody Detention Training Order (DTO) 5 14 29 65 108 5 0 113 Section 90-91 Detention 1 1 1 12 15 0 0 15 TOTAL 775 723 964 1,400 3,197 664 1 3,862

Table 4 Disposals received by young people in Wales, by age and gender, in 2009-1016 Age Gender Disposal 10-14 15 16 17+ Male Female Not TOTAL known Pre-court Police Reprimand (Youth Caution) 1,274 539 537 462 1876 936 0 2812 Final Warning (YCC) 489 325 349 321 1099 385 0 1484 Conditional Caution 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 First-tier Absolute Discharge 12 17 23 27 70 9 0 79 Bind Over 1 12 8 18 28 11 0 39 Compensation Order 111 114 183 256 558 106 0 664 Conditional Discharge 42 70 125 191 349 79 0 428 Fine 12 24 108 288 384 48 0 432 Referral Order 314 292 352 438 1109 287 0 1396 Reparation Order 35 45 59 56 162 33 0 195 Community Action Plan Order 38 52 50 37 127 50 0 177 Attendance Centre Order 10 18 22 31 74 7 0 81 Comm’ty Punish’t and Rehab. 0 0 24 69 84 9 0 93 Order Community Punishment Order 0 0 21 72 87 6 0 93 Community Rehabilitation Order 0 2 37 91 112 18 0 130 Curfew Order 33 56 68 96 219 34 0 253 Drug Treatment and Testing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Order Supervision Order 94 152 149 122 449 68 0 517 Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO) 28 43 40 55 151 15 0 166 Custody Detention Training Order (DTO) 18 48 87 124 269 8 0 277 Section 90-91 Detention 3 1 4 3 10 1 0 11 Section 226-228 Detention 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 TOTAL 2,514 1,811 2,246 2,759 7220 2110 0 9,330

The charts below (based on the above data) show the proportion of disposal type, by tier, received by young people in Wales in 2013-14 (Fig.2) compared to 2009-10 (Fig.3). These charts show that while the numbers of young people receiving youth justice disposals decreased dramatically over the five-year period, 2009-10 to 2013-14, the proportion of young people dealt with using pre-court, first tier and community disposals appears striking similar, despite many ostensible changes in the way youth justice is administered. Notably, although the number of young people sentenced to custody dropped by 55%, from 290 in 2013-14 to 128 in 2009-10, the larger proportion of 17 year olds receiving custodial sentences (see Fig.2) is indicative of the

16 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/youth-justice-annual-statistics-2009-2010

seriousness and persistence of this group’s offending, as noted earlier (YJB 2013, 2015). The use of pre-court disposals has also varied: in 2009-10 they were used at proportionately higher rates with the younger age group of 10-14 year olds and with a slightly lower proportion of 17-18 year olds (see Fig.3). These charts do not accurately reflect the significant increase in the number of all young people dealt with using out-of-court disposals, however, as the following explains.

Since the introduction of diversionary strategies including the Youth Restorative Disposal (YRD) in 2008, and the Triage system and Bureau in 2009 (Haines and Charles 2010; Haines et al 2013), the use of out-of-court disposals has increased dramatically. This increase has mainly comprised young people committing a first offence who are thus diverted from formal youth justice involvement. Since the LASPO Act of 2012, however, young people are no longer automatically escalated through the sentencing hierarchy and can therefore (theoretically at least) be dealt with using an out-of-court disposal (via processes such as the Bureau) even after having received previous statutory orders. This means that young people already in contact with the youth justice system may also be receiving pre-court disposals where appropriate. Since these disposals are often not accompanied by a formal caution (formerly Police Reprimand or Final Warning), and instead may be recorded by police as ‘no further action’ (NFA), this increase in out-of-court activity is not reflected in formal youth justice statistics. Pre-court data is held by individual YOTs, but the diversity of local implementation makes it difficult to collate national data about the number of young people across Wales receiving out-of-court disposals each year. The following, therefore, reflect only a partial view of young people’s contact with the youth justice system and do not reveal the full extent of informal work by police and YOTs to prevent and divert young people from formal and/or further youth justice involvement.

Figure 2 Proportion of disposal type, by tier, given to YP in Wales, 2013-14

Custody

Community Age 10-14 Age 15 Age 16 First Tier Age 17+

Pre-court

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 3 Proportion of disposal type, by tier, given to YP in Wales, 2009-10

Custody

Community Age 10-14 Age 15

First Tier Age 16 Age 17+

Pre-court

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2.1.2 Youth justice practice in Wales

The YJB Cymru serves as ‘a bridge between policy and practice’ (Dusty Kennedy, Director YJB Cymru, personal communication, 20/1/2015). It acts as a conduit for the development and dissemination of effective practice, that is, ways of working with children and young people to most effectively reduce their likelihood of offending by increasing their wellbeing and capacity. Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) were established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as multi- disciplinary teams comprising social workers and other workers specialising in health, education and social care, together with representatives from the police and probation services. Additional specialists can include housing, substance misuse and mental health workers. YOTs are coordinated by local authorities and overseen by the YJB. While defined as YOTs under the legislation, YOTs across Wales choose various designations including Youth Justice Service, Youth Offending Service, or Youth Offending and Prevention Service. In this report all are referred to as YOTs.

The main YJB approved assessment tool used by YOTs is the Asset, though the introduction of the updated version AssetPlus has commenced in YOTs across England and Wales. The Asset is relevant to this research as it was the tool used to assess the young people identified in the original sample (YJB Cymru, 2012) and the evidence recorded in Asset by case workers was subject to part of the analysis. The Asset tool is based on the principles of risk, need and responsivity (RNR) which, since emerging in the 1980s, have dominated approaches to working with young people and adults who offend (Andrews et al 1990; Andrews and Bonta 1998). The purpose of assessment is to determine risk factors and ‘criminogenic needs’ is to ‘provide a clear indication of the types of intervention needed to help a young person lead a law-abiding life in the future’ (Asset17 Introduction, p.1). The Asset is used to gather information about ‘dynamic risk factors’ (those seen as amenable to change) related to the young person’s offending across twelve domains:

1. Living arrangements 2. Family and personal relationships 3. Education, training and employment 4. Neighbourhood 5. Lifestyle

17 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/Asset-documents

6. Substance use 7. Physical health 8. Emotional and mental health 9. Perception of self and others 10. Thinking and behaviour 11. Attitudes to offending 12. Motivation to change

As well as their offending behaviour, other issues to be discussed with the young person are:

 Positive factors  Indicators of vulnerability  Indicators of serious harm to others

In order to ‘make a full assessment’, workers are expected to:

engage in interviews with a young person and his/her family, obtain information from a range of other sources and make a series of judgements about the factors which affect

his/her offending behaviour. Establishing relationships with the young person will therefore be central to the assessment. (Asset Introduction p. 2, emphasis added18)

Case workers rate each factor according to the extent to which they judge it to be ‘associated with the likelihood of further offending by the young person’ (Asset Introduction, p.3), from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very strongly). Rather than ‘an overall assessment of the extent to which a section is problematic’, this is meant to be ‘very specifically focused on the link to offending’ (p3), and the following questions are provided for workers to consider in making this judgement:

 Was this issue linked to past offending? If ‘yes’, do you think it is more, less or equally significant now?  Has this issue a direct or an indirect link with his/her offending?  Is this issue always relevant to his/her offending behaviour or only on certain occasions?  Is the effect on offending behaviour likely to be immediate or over a longer period?  Is this issue problematic enough to lead to offending by itself or is it only likely to contribute to offending behaviour when certain other conditions exist?

This narrow focus on offence-specific factors, which may tend to direct workers’ attention to risk rather than ‘turning the gaze towards the strengths and capacities of individuals and social contexts’ (Robinson 2015: 2), has given rise to critique of the Asset tool. The Risk Factor Prevention (RFP) paradigm that Asset exemplifies is seen as too narrowly conceiving young people in terms of their problems, deficits and pathologies (Ungar 2004; Robinson 2015). It is seen as overly managerialist and reductionist, oversimplifying children’s lives to ‘restricted bundles of risks’ (Haines and Case 2015: 87). Further, according to Haines and Case (2015), the reliance on Asset to measure risk and determine appropriate interventions represents ‘programme fetishism’ which, they argue, is problematic because it ‘aims to achieve a quick fix’ via ‘off-the-shelf’ solutions which frequently lack ‘a robust evidence-base’ (p.43-5). These issues are considered further in the literature section. Such concerns have driven the development of

18 This issue of relationships is picked up in the literature section as an important concept underpinning work with young people.

the new assessment instrument, AssetPlus, which is holistic and strengths-based, places more emphasis on workers’ professional judgement (Baker 2012, 2014 which sets out the YJB rationale)19 and focuses on interventions designed to bring about a range of positive outcomes for children.

Principles of effective practice Effective practice is defined as ‘practice which produces the intended results’ (Chapman and Hough, 1998 in YJB 2013: 5), which refers to evidence of reduced reoffending. This definition is qualified by the acknowledgement that ‘working with children and young people to reduce offending … can be a long process’ (YJB 2013: 5) and that it is ‘difficult to prove’ the effectiveness of particular practices or programmes given ‘the sheer range of factors at play in young people’s lives and the fact that they are moving through a period of rapid physical and emotional development’ (p.5).

The YJB collects, classifies, disseminates and reviews examples of effective practice according to priorities determined through consultation with the youth justice sector. In 2012 the following priority areas were identified:

• Child development and psychology (e.g. attachment and trauma theory) • Looked-after children • Speech, language and communication difficulties (post-identification) • Sexually-harmful behaviour • Effective services – engaging young people

2011 priority areas included:

• Evaluating programmes and using evidence-based methodology • Working with young people with conduct and developmental disorders • Working with young people who have experienced domestic abuse • Working with girls who offend.

The YJB’s Effective Practice Library20 is an online repository of resources that contains over 200 examples of programmes and practices classified along a five-point scale, ranging from ‘ineffective’ to ‘research proven’, based on the research evidence and/or sector endorsement. The concern with effectiveness is not simply about producing desired outcomes; it also relates to the potential for harm21. Effective practice assumes that there is a right way and a wrong way to intervene in young people’s lives, and that ‘[t]he right intervention can facilitate desistance, while the wrong intervention can increase offending and extend the period that a young adult is engaged with criminal justice agencies’ (T2A, 2012 Pathways from Crime: 8). As the range of content in the YJB’s effective practice library suggests, intervention is not intended as a one-size- fits-all approach. Effective practice with young people involves working with them in response to their needs, interests, strengths, abilities and aptitudes in the context of their developmental capacity; this highlights the importance of maturity (T2A/Howard League 2015).

Young people’s transition to adulthood is the focus of much recent work including the WCCSJ report on Youth-to-Adult Transitions Policy (Brewster, 2015) and the YJB’s Youth to adult

19 For a description and critical assessment of the AssetPlus model see Haines and Case 2015, chapter 4. 20 https://www.justice.gov.uk/youth-justice/effective-practice-library 21 See the YJB Practice Classification System (2013) (at website above) for detailed description of how the YJB classifies youth justice practice and programmes as either effective or ineffective.

transition principles and guidance for Wales (YJB/NOMS Cymru, 2015). The Transition to Adulthood (T2A) Alliance has concentrated attention on maturity as the foundation of effective practice with young people moving towards adulthood. Their publications such as You can’t put a number on it: A report from young adults on why in criminal justice maturity is more important than age (T2A/Howard League, 2015) and Effective approaches with young adults: A guide for probation services (Clinks and T2A, 2015) build on earlier guides Taking Account of Maturity: A Guide for Probation Practitioners (T2A, 2013), Pathways from Crime (T2A, 2012) and Going for Gold: Developing effective services for young adults throughout the criminal justice process (Clinks and T2A, 2012). In policy terms, youth to adult transition occupies a particular space: the interface between youth offending teams and adult probation services. More importantly, though, this focus draws practitioners’ attention to the concept of maturity when working with, supporting and guiding young people through the in-between and indeterminate state of emergence from childhood to adulthood.

3. Reviewing the literature

This research aims to tell a story drawing together youth justice policy narratives and practitioners’ perspectives with the statistics and stories of young people identified as ‘prolific’ in their offending. The idea is that prolific offending is as much a socially constructed phenomenon as it is about individuals’ behaviour; it is about meaning and identity and the ways in which these are constructed by and about young people. Building a conceptual framework within which to locate this study and to make sense of its findings therefore demands a particular approach to what is already ‘known’ about young people’s high volume offending and how and why it might start, stop and fluctuate over time. This means looking beyond traditional criminological theories about why young people are likely to offend in the first place. It means looking beyond the so-called ‘risk factors’ associated with young people’s likelihood of reoffending. It means mining the adult-focused desistance paradigm for concepts that might be relevant to the experience of teenagers and young adults. And it requires thinking about the elements of youth justice practice that most effectively engage and involve young people with complex needs in bringing about positive change in their lives.

This section is in two parts. The first briefly outlines dominant theories informing the practice of youth justice and that have sought to explain why young people become involved in and choose to continue offending. These theories have also been used to explain why people’s offending might taper off (‘primary desistance’) or stop altogether (‘secondary desistance’) (Maruna and Farrall 2004). The desistance literature, however, has tended to focus on adults and therefore has less to say about how and why young people might change or stop their offending behaviours (Maruna 1997; Stephenson, Adams and Tarling 2014). The second part considers the desistance literature and draws out key conceptual elements that may be usefully applied to understanding young people’s involvement in high-volume offending and the sort of strategies that can help to interrupt such offending trajectories. 3.1 Theories about young people’s ‘prolific’ offending

Concern around prolific and persistent offending is centred upon a small number of people seen as responsible for committing a disproportionately large amount of crime. Besides the harm

caused to the community by high-volume offending, there is the issue that this small proportion of frequent reoffenders is ‘not well covered by existing interventions’ (Ministry of Justice 2010: 13). Understanding why young people become involved in prolific and persistent offending and the most effective ways to interrupt those behaviours has thus become the target of policies and practices to reduce reoffending. As Rowe and Soppitt (2014: 398) suggest, however, the ‘the notion of the prolific repeat offender’ may reveal as much or ‘more about patterns of convictions rather than offending’. This issue points to the way in which social problems are constructed and perpetuated: as much through perceptions and societal reactions to phenomena as to a phenomenon itself. This idea is at the heart of the theory of labelling.

3.1.1 Labelling – the effects of social reactions

Labelling theory is embedded in youth justice policies and practices (Barry and McNeill, 2009), yet this theoretical foundation is frequently left implicit. For this reason, it is worth outlining its basic concepts given that young people are seen as particularly susceptible to its effects. From a labelling perspective, social reactions to young people’s behaviour can shape and influence their subsequent behaviour (Lemert 1951; Becker 1963). Lemert (1951, 1972) sought to explain how a person’s ‘criminal’ self-image may be cemented when internal labelling is reinforced by external labels applied through criminal justice processes and informal mechanisms. The result of this process is stigmatisation (Becker, 1963). When stigma arouses hostility, contempt or fear, the effect is one of social exclusion. This outcome is most likely – and indeed reinforced – when the person is subject to a ‘status degradation ceremony’ (Garfinkel 1956) such as a court appearance or court-ordered sanction (Braithwaite and Mugford 1994). Stigmatisation can thus lead to ‘a vicious cycle of norm-violation, repression, resentment, and new and more serious acts of violation’ (Cloward and Ohlin 1960: 127), bringing Becker’s (1963) notion of the ‘self-fulfilling prophesy’ to life.

These principles are deeply embedded in the youth justice system. The idea that young people are developmentally immature, impressionable and therefore more malleable – or ‘correctable’ – is the logic underpinning much diversion and prevention work. The use of restorative justice, particularly in a youth setting, also reflects the wide and usually implicit acceptance of labelling principles. Labelling is linked to social control mechanisms via the expression and communication of behavioural norms and expectations. Restorative justice conferences, for example, as a ritualised form of such mechanisms, seek to remedy the stigmatising effects of labelling by creating opportunities for reintegrative rather than stigmatic shaming (Braithwaite, 1989). These processes draw on such concepts as the ‘looking-glass self’, whereby we see ourselves through the lens of others’ perceptions of us (Maruna et. al. 2004). Restorative processes also draw heavily on theories of social bonds or informal social control.

3.1.2 Social bonds and social control

Social bonds describe the ties between individuals and society, the things that bind us to each other and create the sense of mutual obligation and connection that ensure social cohesion and allow individuals and groups to flourish. Hirschi (1969) identified four social bonds – attachment, belief, commitment and involvement – as the keys to this cohesion which, when weakened or ruptured, increase an individual’s propensity to engage in offending behaviour (see Farrall et al 2014: 29-30). Sampson and Laub’s (1993) theory of age-graded social control built on Hirschi’s (1969) social bond theory. The logic is that if young people lack attachment or commitment to

the norms, expectations and goals shared within their social setting, there is little reason for them to respect or abide by those controlling factors. Similarly, without strong belief in the wider society’s accepted moral conventions or customs, or involvement in activities that tie them into social obligations with the broader community, they have little motivation to adhere to societal expectations about behaviour or aspirations.

This perspective is useful to highlight young people’s experience of social and economic exclusion, relative deprivation and the effects of structural conditions such as employment precarity (Spencer, 2014; Antonucci et.al., 2014). It can explain why young people might feel and behave as though they have little investment in a society from which they feel excluded and marginalised. Social control theory is less often applied in this way to young people, however. It is more frequently invoked in terms of self-control. Perhaps mirroring the trend towards individualisation and the responsibilisation of adults and (increasingly) young people, an individual’s lack of control over their impulses and desires is seen as a significant risk factor for offending. Building social bonds as a way of increasing social cohesion and controlling behaviour can be part of rehabilitative and restorative practice aimed at reducing this risk.

3.1.3 Social learning and social ecology

Recognition of the importance of family and neighbourhood factors in shaping children’s behaviour and social identity draws on social learning theory as well as ecological explanations of criminality. These theories tend to emphasise the family and community context of young people’s lives, and the significance of relationships in the modelling and transmission of cultural and behavioural norms. From Sutherland’s (1940) earliest formulation of the principles of ‘differential association’, to later psychologically informed work on positive and negative reinforcement of behaviour via stimulus and response (Akers 1973), social learning theories have provided a range of explanations of how and why children absorb and reproduce anti-social behavioural norms and how pro-social modelling might function as an antidote. As well as characterising the ‘static’ risk factors that may contribute to a young person’s increase risk of offending, social learning also provides the basis of interventions that aim to build social capital and resilience and to interrupt offending trajectories. Young people’s capacity to learn habits, styles, values and ways of being from family, peers and neighbourhood settings and their broader social context can thus function both as risk and protective factors.

3.1.4 Developmental and life-course perspectives

The literature on the risk and protective factors associated with a young person’s likelihood of involvement in crime is extensive. Embedded in this literature are theories focused on social processes, social structure, and the interplay between young people and their environment. There is also a strong emphasis on individual factors including ‘free choice’, biological and pathological conditions, and social-psychological explanations. Developmental and life-course perspectives, in particular, underpin the dominant ‘risk and protective factor’ approach to conceptualising and responding to young people’s offending. From a developmental perspective young people’s offending is associated with the increased risk-taking and impulsivity that accompanies adolescence, a phase which ends for most young people through a process of maturing or ‘aging out’ of crime (Laub and Sampson 2001). Maturational theories of desistance build upon Moffitt’s (1993) ‘dual taxonomy’ which differentiates two distinct offending trajectories: ‘adolescence limited’ offending is associated with ‘normal’ teenage offending which

peaks between 15 and 19 then tails off; whereas ‘life course persistent’ criminality suggests that the earlier a child becomes involved in offending, the more likely the child’s offending will continue into adulthood.

Notwithstanding a lack of empirical support (Farrall et al 2014), understandings of early onset offending and its implications for persistence into adulthood build on this distinction. In Canada, for instance, Yessine and Bonta (2008) identified two offending trajectories which corresponded closely to Moffitt’s (1993) and Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber’s (1996) categories of early onset persisters and late onset desisters. However, such blanket theorising tends to mask the heterogeneity of offending trajectories. Young people do not necessarily fit these typologies. As Maruna (1997) writes, given the variation of outcomes for adults with teenage histories of offending, ‘any theory that uses age alone or a single, normative pattern of development to explain desistance fails to account for the considerable heterogeneity of developmental pathways’ (p.3, original emphasis).

Large cohort longitudinal studies have provided a foundation for much of the subsequent developmental theorising about why people stop or continue offending into adulthood (e.g. Sampson and Laub 1993; Laub and Sampson 2003; Farrington et al 1986; Farrington and West 1993; Farrington 1995; Loeber et al 2003). Individual and social factors have been linked to people’s inclination and capacity to sustain offence-free periods and even lifestyles. For instance, studies show that factors such as securing employment (Shover 1985; Sampson and Laub 1993), finishing school (Farrington et al 1986), getting married (Sampson and Laub 1993; Farrington and West 1995), and becoming a parent (Leibrich 1993; Sampson and Laub 1993) are all associated with desistance from crime (Farrall et al 2014, p.4-5, cite many more studies). However, other research fails to confirm these findings (e.g. Graham and Bowling 1995; Rand 1987). As Farrall et al (2014: 5) note, several studies find no evidence to support the link between ‘turning points’ (Sampson and Laub 1993, 2003) such as marriage or parenthood and reduced likelihood of reoffending. Sampson and Laub’s work has nevertheless been important in shaping and supporting risk factor research on offending and desistance. What this literature maybe fails to capture is how and to what extent these and other ‘events’ may help to build pro-social lives. Whilst this sounds similar to desistance the building of a pro-social life involves not just events which may encourage a person to stop offending but also those which provide reasons and opportunities to build different lives, ones in which criminality has no place. These opportunities often arise out of small but pivotal or important changes or life chances, often out of a series of such changes; they are less momentous but lay the groundwork that may lead to the ‘life- changing’ events discussed in the desistance literature.

One of the main criticisms of a risk factor approach to conceptualising and responding to young people’s offending, however, is its implicit and overriding focus on individualising the causes of – and therefore ‘solutions’ to – offending. Young people are thereby ‘responsibilised’ for factors over which they are seen to have control – their attitudes, thinking and behaviour – notwithstanding the various social, situational and structural forces and conditions shaping and influencing these factors (Kemshall 2008; Gray 2013; Haines and Case 2015). Indeed, these external factors are frequently side-lined by a focus on ‘dynamic risk factors’ – or ‘criminogenic needs’ – the things in a young person’s life that relate to their offending and which are seen as amenable to change.

3.1.5 Risk/needs paradigm

Over the last three decades, practices aimed at reducing reoffending with young people and adults have been shaped by the risk-needs-responsivity (RNR) principle (Andrews et al 1990; Andrews and Bonta 1998; Andrews and Dowden 2006). Underpinned by psychological perspectives on behavioural change, the RNR model emphasises the assessment and ‘treatment’ of factors associated with reoffending risk. The ‘risk’ principle assumes that ‘individuals may be differentiated according to their chances of displaying negative outcomes such as reoffending’ (Andrews and Dowden 2006: 88). Classification and intervention are determined according to that risk, with more intensive services delivered to ‘higher risk’ cases. According to the ‘need’ principle, dynamic risk factors – individual and social problems associated with criminality and seen as amenable to change – are targeted for intervention. ‘Responsivity’ demands that rehabilitative efforts ‘employ … strategies such as social learning or behavioural techniques’ (Andrews and Dowden, 2006: 90) that are matched to individual learning styles, strengths and abilities.

Risk-based tools identify, rate and classify areas of risk and vulnerability in terms of young people’s ‘criminogenic needs’ (Andrews et al 1990; Andrews and Bonta 1998). Such neat theoretical and causal categorisations, however, belie the multifactorial nature of many explanations for young people’s law-breaking, and they tend to perpetuate binaries such as ‘offender’/’non-offender’. They also mask the contested nature of ‘knowledge’ about young people and offending behaviour. As Ward (2006) notes, ‘clinicians and researchers have recently challenged certain aspects of [the RNR] approach and argued that concentrating on reducing dynamic risk factors … is a necessary but not sufficient condition for effective … interventions’ (p.212, original emphasis). Baker (2005) similarly argues that tools such as Asset can provide ‘greater structure, transparency and accountability in assessment practice’ (p.106) but that they rely on professional skills, expertise and discretion to be used well. Thus, while the RNR model has obvious strengths as Ward (2006) concludes, relying on a reductionist risk assessment tool in order to prescribe the correct ‘dose’ of treatment does not adequately equip workers with the tools required for them to effectively engage young people in the process of change. Along with other critics of the RNR approach, Ward argues for a ‘more constructive or positive approach to treatment’, incorporating ‘experiences [or] activities’ that promote ‘well-being and higher levels of personal satisfaction and social functioning’ (Ward 2006: 112).

Ward (2006: 113) summarises six main criticisms levelled at the RNR approach to reducing reoffending which are relevant to this research. He points to: 1) the difficulty motivating young people to stop offending when it fulfils various needs and/or provides rewards of some kind; 2) the RNR model’s inattention to the significance of narrative identity and young people’s agency or goal-directedness; 3) its limited view of human nature which fails to account for individuals’ desire to ‘live balanced and personally fulfilling lives’ (p.113); 4) the failure to build in to the model recognition of the critical role of a ‘good therapeutic alliance’, that is a ‘worker/client’ relationship based on trust and human connection; 5) the privileging of psychometric ‘risk’ data over socio-ecological and cultural factors, which risks treating human beings as if they were isolated from their social context; and lastly 6) the ‘one size fits all’ style of implementation that belies individual needs and difference – and is at odds ‘with its own principle of responsivity!’ (Ward 2006: 113). The main ideas highlighted (in italics) here – motivation, identity, desire, trust,

social context and individual needs – are seen as key elements to draw out and expand upon in building a critical conceptual framework for this study. 3.2 Why young people stop offending – ‘desistance’ theory

The desistance literature offers insights into the processes by which adults, over the life-course, may cease or ‘retire from’ offending and highlights the importance of the social context of these individual factors. Rather than asking ‘what works’ in terms of programmes or interventions, desistance research tends to focus on ‘the long-term, dynamic interactions that help individuals move away from criminal behaviour, but more importantly help them stay away from returning to such behaviours in the face of life crises and stresses’ (Maruna et al 2012: 47). These processes are seen to involve growing up (maturation), developing ‘pro-social’ connections with other people (social bonds), and the emergence of a non-criminal identity: a ‘redemptive script’ (Maruna 2001) or ‘replacement self’ (Giordano et al 2002). But as noted above, most desistance studies have focused on adults (Maruna 1997; Stephenson et al 2014) and with a few notable exceptions (e.g. Farrington and West 1993; Farrington 1995; Graham and Bowling 1995; Jamieson et.al., 1999; Barry, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2015; Terry and Abrams 2015) have tended to view adolescence as a stage in the desistance process rather than the focus of investigation. This is despite the fact that ‘late teenage years are the peak age for offending, but also the time when a young adult is most likely to desist from crime’ (T2A 2013: 2).

Research seeking to document young people’s perspectives on their offending behaviour can provide valuable insights into how and why young people’s patterns of offending may vary (Stephenson et al 2014). For instance, a Scottish study (Jamieson et.al., 1999, in McNeill et al 2005: 14) noted gender and age differences among ‘desisters’ across three age groups: 14-15, 18-19, and 22-25 year olds. Whereas the younger group’s desistance was associated with their understanding of the consequences of their offending and a ‘growing recognition that [it] was pointless or wrong’ (McNeill et al 2005: 14), the 18-19 year olds’ was linked to ‘increasing maturity’ and markers of the ‘transition to adulthood’ such as getting a job, going to college, or committing to an intimate relationship (p.14). For the older group, either ‘the assumption of family responsibilities’ or ‘a conscious lifestyle change’ prompted their move away from offending (McIvor et.al., 2000: 9). Young women tended to highlight relational aspects of the process, while young men were more likely to emphasise individual decision-making and agency (McIvor et al 2000 in McNeill et al 2005: 14). Yet studies involving teenagers are few and tend to be small (e.g. Murray 2010, 2012; Haigh 2009). Indeed, the way ‘desistance’ is generally conceived in the literature renders young people’s experience marginal.

Distinctions are drawn between ‘primary desistance’ – a lull in offending – and ‘secondary desistance’ or permanent cessation (Farrall and Calverley 2006: 2), with emphasis placed on the latter as more meaningful. Yet as Healy and O’Donnell (2008) point out, understanding the early stages of desistance is particularly important given so many subjects of research ‘are in this transitional phase of reform’ (p.28). Moreover, the notion of secondary desistance is an odd concept to apply to young people since arguably it can only be measured definitively in retrospect; that is, after an ‘offender’ has died (Maruna et al 2015), or at least matured into adulthood. Primary desistance may be a more relevant concept as it captures lulls and gaps that more typically characterise young people’s behavioural patterns. As Stephenson, Adams and Tarling (2014) point out, when ‘working with adolescents, where arguably a week is a long time

and periods of intervention are relatively brief, primary desistance may assume more significance’ (p.131). Further, some of the influences that may encourage desistance in adults – such as marriage or long term employment – may not be available or relevant to teenagers (Stephenson et al 2014).

Perhaps more meaningful work and research with young people, then, needs to focus less on desistance as a long-term outcome, and more on opportunities for small changes in thinking, experience and behaviour with a view to interrupting prolific offending patterns. Stephenson et al (2014), for instance, who evaluated the Summer Arts College Programmes across England and Wales between 2007 and 2012, identify a potential pathway to creating ‘confident new learner identities characterised by enhanced self-efficacy’ (p.131) which could lead to later engagement in education and training. This positive conceptualisation of young people departs from deficit- based accounts of delinquency and desistance and offers an alternative, strengths-based way of thinking about interrupting prolific offending. While much desistance theory has limited direct applicability to adolescence, the focus on ‘long-term, dynamic interactions’ that help people both move away and stay away from crime ‘in the face of life crises and stresses’ (Maruna et al 2012: 47) offers a useful orientation for the study of young people with complex needs. It directs our attention to both the nature of such interactions and to how young people experience/react to traumas, pressures and anxieties. In this research, much was placed on providing opportunities to supporting children to build their capacity to move towards pro-social lives.

From this perspective, desistance theory has embedded in it some useful concepts for understanding how and why young people’s offending might vary in response to different influences in their lives. For example, McNeill et al (2005) identify key characteristics of the desistance process based on previous research into what has helped people to stop offending. According to their précis (p.3-4, 31-32, emphasis added), desistance:

— is a process characterised by ambivalence and vacillation — may be prompted by meaningful life events — may be inspired by someone ‘believing in’ a person — involves a shift or reconstruction in narrative identities (or self-stories) — requires the ‘discovery of agency’ – ‘the ability to … govern one’s own life’ — requires a combination of opportunities and capacities — may hinge on finding purpose through ‘generative activities’ (‘giving back’).

These elements are essential to supporting the child to build his or her capacity to live move positive lives and can be distilled into four interconnected concepts seen as particularly relevant to working with young people, in the context of their adolescent development, to interrupt their offending: motivation, engagement, relationship, identity. In an attempt to tease out the connections and distinctions between them, these concepts are explored below.

3.2.1 Motivation

Bracken, Deane and Morrissette (2009) highlight, along with structural factors, the significance of ‘individual motivation to desist from offending’ (p.62). Yet what do we mean by motivation? As Rowe and Soppitt (2014) note ‘the concept is ambiguous and often … unconceptualised’ (p.403). Moreover, how do we understand motivation to desist? How does the intention not to do something relate to the impetus, desire or inclination ‘to make certain choices, to engage in action, to expend effort and persist in action’? (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011: 3). The desire or motive not

to engage in something might be more sensibly replaced with a motivation to do something such as to build a pro-social life or to support a child to increase his or her life chances. Theories of motivation have focused variously on subconscious and conscious needs and drives, the role of cognition and affect in shaping action/inaction, and the relationship between motivation and learning (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011). The concept of motivation in this context draws on psychological theories that tend to ‘focus on conscious cognitive processes (e.g. goals and expectations, self-efficacy beliefs, interpretations of events) shaping action and behaviour’ (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011: 5). Increasingly, too, research attention is turning to the role of emotions and the link between cognition and affect, driven by developments in evolutionary, positive and neuro-psychology (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011). This has led to a growing focus on ‘personal meaning’ and ‘emotional well-being’ as well as the neuro-biological bases of psychological needs and affects (p. 5).

Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011: 4) identify the basic elements of motivation as:

• why people decide to do something, • how long they are willing to sustain the activity, and • how hard they are going to pursue it.

As they point out, however, motivation involves complex mental processes that evolve gradually over time; importantly, too, ‘different sub-phases of the motivation process may be associated with different motives’22 (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011: 6). Given that motivation ‘ebbs and flows in complex ways in response to various internal and external influences’ (p.6), its temporal aspect is critical to consider, particularly in the context of work with young people who tend to be susceptible to external influences, whose social identities are in flux, and whose experience of time tends to be concentrated in the ‘here and now’. Rather than a constant stable construct, motivation is inherently variable, inconsistent and contingent (Rowe and Soppitt 2014). Considering motivation in terms of time allows a focus on young people’s ‘moment-by-moment experience’ (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011: 6) – shaped by needs, desires, emotions – as well as a longer-term view of changing goals and aspirations, perhaps more likely wrought by conscious cognitive processes.

An early stage in the motivation process is forming intention to do (or not do) something (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011: 6). Intention is also identified as an important factor in engaging and encouraging young people’s participation in decision-making (Haines and Case 2015: 109). Intention here refers to children’s sense of autonomy and ability to participate in such processes on their own terms, reflecting the UNCRC’s Article 12, giving young people ‘the opportunity to be heard in ... proceedings affecting’ them (in Haines and Case 2015: 108). A Report on the Intensive Fostering [IF] Pilot Programme (Biehal et al 2010) noted that ‘research on services for troubled and troublesome adolescents has highlighted the importance of young people’s own agency in the process of change and, in particular, their motivation to change their behaviour’ (p.20, emphasis added). The report observes that young people’s motivation to change was at times ‘reinforced while in their IF placements’ (p.20), suggesting that supportive and/or constant relationships may be an important context for motivation to develop.

22 These subphases include ‘initial planning and goal setting, intention formation, task generation, action implementation, action control and outcome evaluation’ (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011: 6).

Rowe and Soppitt (2014) downplay the importance of young people’s personal sense of motivation, however, in relation to their participation in interventions and/or their ‘success’ in terms of reduction in offending or building a more positive, pro-social, life:

If a virtuous circle commences such that desistance leads to lifestyle normalization and an increase in social capital that might itself reduce the likelihood of future offending, then the quality of the initial motivation might be of minor significance. (p.406)

This virtuous circle highlights the ‘cyclical relationship’ between motivation and learning (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011: 5), generally theorised as positive cycles of ‘high motivation → high achievement → high motivation’, or negative cycles of ‘low motivation → low achievement → low motivation’ (p. 6). Such assumptions might well be seen to underpin perceptions of young people’s ‘engagement’ with interventions and subsequent ‘successful’ outcomes. Healy (2010) notes many criminal justice programmes rely on participants’ high level of motivation. However, Rowe and Soppitt (2014) found examples where ‘the compulsory nature of attendance helped overcome preconceptions that might otherwise have prevented participation’ (p.406), suggesting that motivation might ‘develop as a result of participation’, and drawing ‘an important distinction’ between ‘motivation’ and ‘participation’ (p.406). Rowe and Soppitt also found, conversely, that ‘the voluntary nature of participation was an important part of [some people’s] motivation’, such as the one who said ‘They offered support before but I wasn’t ready’ (p.406). The notion of readiness emerges as an important theme in the mentoring literature (see, for example, Brown and Ross 2010a, 2010b).

Mentoring relationships can provide a context for developing motivation (MacCallum et al, 2005), even if just the early phases of the process such as thinking about possibilities or forming intentions to change. MacCallum et al (2005) examined the findings of a national pilot project of mentoring programs for indigenous students in Australia, and interpreted them in terms of motivation and the socio-cultural contexts which supported the mentoring relationship. Their findings are useful in the context of this study because they report confidence-building as an outcome of mentoring, which is a critical ingredient required for any young person – indeed anyone – to be able to make changes in their life. Importantly, too, MacCallum et al highlight the difficulties associated with measuring the ‘success’ of mentoring, ‘given the difficulty of measuring the kinds of outcomes usually attributed to mentoring’, including, ‘self-esteem, problem solving, decision-making and general life skills’ (2005: 2). They cite increasing ‘evidence of improvements in these’, pointing out that ‘school attendance and retention are much easier to measure and can provide evidence of successful mentoring’ (p.2). Similarly, reoffending rates can provide ostensibly ‘easy to measure’ evidence of ‘success’, yet can reveal little about how or why something works, and may conceal subtle but subjectively meaningful degrees of success.

Small steps towards change are important indicators of the dynamic motivation process and its fluctuations, as the ‘stages of change’ model elaborates (Prochaska and DiClemente 1983). Readiness for change, as a precursive element of motivation, similarly varies and wavers according to external and internal influences. In examining adults’ motivation and engagement in desistance programmes amid chaotic offending lifestyles, Rowe and Soppitt (2014) describe a motivation continuum: from ‘a “pure” normative commitment to develop a “normalized lifestyle”, at one end, to ‘the “forced compliance” of engagement rooted in a desire to avoid negative … outcomes’ at the other (p.403). However, motivation hinges on more than ‘internal subjectivity’: one interviewee, for example, linked his motivation to stop offending to his alcohol use which

‘varied on a daily basis’ (Rowe and Soppitt 2014: 403). For young people, just as for ‘chaotic’ offending adults, such inconsistency might conceivably be amplified by a lack of maturity as well as by the range of factors going on in their lives. Given that abstaining from criminal activity itself is a short-term phenomenon in adolescence, readiness for change underpinning the ‘motivation to change’ seems best understood as part of a complex, dynamic and recursive process.

Expanding on this idea, Pawson (2004) suggests that a deeper and more nuanced understanding of how young people may be motivated by/within a mentoring relationship must take into account the complexities of working with disadvantaged and disaffected young people. Acknowledging the reality, for instance, that ‘progress is not only halting, it is non-linear’ (p.40), and that effective mentoring relationships involve a continual process of ‘rebuilding’ via ‘a stepladder of ascent in which relations of trust have to be regained, mentees imbued with resilience to old and repeated stumbling blocks, and instilled with confidence in the face of new hurdles’ (p.41). Conceding that reintegration is a lofty goal, he describes the processes underlying mentoring young people as ‘a network of flows, blockages and slippages’, evoking a ‘snakes-and- ladders’ metaphor (p.40). In light of these practical challenges, Pawson emphasises the importance of engagement with young people’s needs and realities, on their terms.

3.2.2 Engagement

Engagement, inclusion and participation are ideas at the heart of the ‘children first, offenders second’ philosophy (Haines and Drakeford 1998; Drakeford 2010; Case and Haines 2014a, 2014b and 2014c; Haines and Case 2015). Engagement is also a theme underpinning effective youth justice practice, and a ‘priority area’ within YJB’s effective practice framework since 2012. Yet engagement is an ambiguous, complex and multi-faceted concept (Ipsos MORI 2010; Bateman and Hazel 2013). It can refer to attendance at or completion of programmes (Rowe and Soppitt 2014), or to how young people experience their involvement with YOTs (Phoenix and Kelly 2013). Henry et al (2014) equate it to active involvement, arguing that ‘effective interventions are those that actively engage youth and their families in the development of plans and in intervention processes.’ It thus carries both intrinsic and instrumental connotations (Bateman and Hazel 2013). Ipsos MORI (2010), in their Review of Techniques for Effective Engagement and Participation, note that YOT workers found it difficult to distinguish between engagement and participation; even though the latter ‘tended to be seen to relate to young people turning up to appointments, meeting targets and completing worksheets’ (p.5), there were ‘clear overlaps … between the two’ concepts (p.5).

Acknowledging its conceptual ambiguity, Case and Haines (2014a, 2014b) borrow Mason and Prior’s (2008: 12) ‘working definition’ of engagement as ‘young people’s personal motivation and commitment to involvement in activities’. This goes beyond involvement and participation by invoking ‘motivation’ and ‘commitment’ as constitutive elements. Ipsos MORI (2010) question, however, how young people might demonstrate ‘commitment’ other than by not reoffending. They similarly found that YOT workers defined engagement in terms of young people ‘[f]orming positive relationships, being motivated to change and being aware of the consequences of behaviour’ (2010: 5). Yet we have seen in the preceding section how fluid and malleable the ‘motivation’ concept can be; how its different phases can have different motives, how it varies in response to various internal and external influences, and how it changes over time. Motivation also has important components such as intention and readiness, which do not necessarily

coincide. Clearly motivation and engagement are conceptually distinct: ‘one might be motivated but not engaged, or vice versa’ (Rowe and Soppitt 2014: 410); yet they are also closely connected.

For Case and Haines (2014b), a youth justice system based on ‘child-focused decision-making’ is one that ‘works together with children by facilitating their participation and engagement23 (i.e. child-friendly and child-appropriate partnership)’ (p.6). Their notion of engagement is thus linked to ‘full’ participation, as explained in the following exhortation:

‘youth justice practice (e.g. assessment and intervention) must be implemented in ways that children can understand, perceive as ‘legitimate’ …, fully participate in (e.g. in decision-making processes, the interpretation of assessments, the planning of interventions) and engage with (i.e. commit to, comply with)’ (2014b: 11)

Here ‘engagement’ takes on a slightly different emphasis, on commitment and compliance, evoking both its normative and functional aspects. Central too is ‘the concept of ‘legitimacy’ (p.11) – children perceiving their treatment by and interactions with adults as ‘moral, just and fair’ (p.11) – which Case and Haines argue (2014b: 11) is crucial for their engagement, participation and compliance with interventions. Most importantly for Case and Haines (2014a) is that engagement make sense from a young person’s perspective (see also Bateman and Hazel 2013: 4). Focusing on adult definitions, they argue, misses the point that ‘if it is to be effective, engagement needs to be understood and practised from a child’s perspective’ (Case and Haines 2014a: 3). They contrast youth justice literature with research in related fields, such as youth work and education, which ‘has identified the value children place on relationships based on trust, respect, fairness and voluntarism/choice’ (p.3, original emphasis). Hine (2004) attests to children’s valuing of fairness in the enforcement of rules, for example. It is these values by which children themselves are able to distinguish ‘between actual engagement with intervention and mere participation in intervention’ (p.3). These features, according to Case and Haines, are brought about by ‘holistic assessment models and consultation processes’ (p.3). Farrow et al (2007: 97–115) provide a detailed account of a holistic approach to assessing a young person.

Central to Mason and Prior’s (2008) definition is ‘the question of how to gain young people’s interest and willing participation in interventions’ (p.12). Young people’s ‘passive involvement is not enough’; they emphasise that practitioners need to have ‘specific skills and knowledge (‘techniques’) … to achieve engagement, in addition to skills and knowledge associated with the particular type of intervention’ (p.12). Pawson (2004) summarises the elements of the engagement process as ‘befriending’, ‘direction setting’, ‘coaching’ and ‘advocacy’ (p.40). These stages of engagement are achieved via ‘[c]ommunication and relationship building with young people’, which begin with effective assessment (Mason and Prior 2008: 15). This highlights the ‘chicken-and-egg’ nature of the engagement process. The effective intervention literature suggests that effective engagement relies on careful initial assessment (Mason and Prior 2008). But assessment can only be effective with some degree of engagement; that is, the person’s interest and participation in and openness to the process of ‘being assessed’. This is where the practitioners’ skills, knowledge and techniques come in. ‘If from a practitioner perspective, engagement is a “technical” exercise’ though, as Bateman and Hazel (2013: 4) warn, it is still important to understand ‘what constitutes engagement from a young person’s perspective’. And as Case and Haines (2014a) affirm, children value ‘relationships based on trust’ (p.3).

23 These principles sit at the heart of the Welsh policy of ‘children first offenders second’.

Ward (2006) highlights the importance of a ‘good therapeutic alliance’ (p.113) between worker and ‘client’ based on trust and human connection. McNeill et al (2005) define this ‘working alliance’ as shared ‘agreement on overall goals; agreement on tasks to realise those goals; and a bond of mutual respect and trust’ (p. 24). Creating these conditions depends on the worker’s ability to convey warmth, empathy and ‘therapeutic genuineness’ (McNeill et al 2005: 4). Perhaps as significant (and these findings with adults might equally relate to young people with their workers) are the perceived ‘trustworthiness, expertness and attractiveness’ of therapists (McNeill et al 2005: 24). These perceptions have been shown to affect ‘client satisfaction’, changes in self-concept, and engagement with therapy (McNeill et al 2005: 24). Importantly too, in terms of maintaining an effectiveness ‘working alliance’, Mason and Prior (2008) imply that young people are ‘engaged’ in a programme of activities if they feel a ‘commitment to [its] objectives’ and are ‘motivated to benefit, through learning or personal development, from the … activities’ (p. 12). Engagement, then, involves an initial and ongoing process of trust-building and mutual belief: belief in one another and trust that the activity is worth committing to. Going back to Dörnyei and Ushioda’s (2011: 4) elements of motivation, engagement may also be about how long young people are willing to sustain their effort and how hard they will try.

Ultimately, for interventions to be effective, that is to achieve their goal of reducing offending, young people need to find them relevant and interesting (McGuire et al, 2002). This highlights the inherent difficulty in engaging young people, especially those with complex needs: how to interest them in activities designed to challenge their thinking and behaviour; and how to make those interventions relevant to their lives and experience. So effective assessment depends on a worker’s ability to identify what might be of interest and relevance to a young person, in order to engage their ‘willing participation’ in and ‘motivation and commitment’ to subsequent interventions (Mason and Prior 2008). Yet when the intervention is mandated by court order, and non-participation may result in breach, the paradox of ‘willing’ engagement is brought into sharp relief. Rowe and Soppitt’s (2014) finding, that ‘perfunctory and routine engagement’ and ‘forced compliance’ can ‘engender an emotional and normative motivation’ (p.410) to change behaviour, suggests that participation is an important first step in the engagement process.

Serin and Lloyd (2009) also argue that engagement is part of the process of change; they suggest ‘a kind of “threshold” level of engagement in the change process that must be reached before change can occur’ (2009: 349). This connects to the notion of readiness, and the idea of pre- contemplation in the stages of change model (Prochaska and DiClemente 1983). Motivation, from this perspective, rather than a prerequisite, may develop as a result of the engagement process:

for some individuals it may be that this threshold is only reached through a learning process involving multiple failed attempts to succeed. … [T]hose who desire to change will experience periodic setbacks and decreases in motivation stemming from external and internal barriers along their way. (Serin and Lloyd 2009: 349)

These periodic setbacks recall Pawson’s (2004) ‘snakes-and-ladders’ image, of the ‘flows, blockages and slippages’ (p.40) that characterise young people’s motivation and engagement in mentoring relationships. Both intrinsically and functionally, relationships are ‘at the centre of effective engagement’ (Mason and Prior 2008: 12), and the ‘staff/service user’ relationship can shape motivation (Rowe and Soppitt 2014: 409). Clearly, then, motivation and engagement are connected to and contingent upon the nature of the relationship between a young person and their (adult) worker.

3.2.3 Relationship

The practitioner/young person relationship sits at the heart of successful youth justice practice (McNeill et al 2005; Farrow et al 2007; Drake et al, 2014). McNeill et al (2005) also note that for an intervention to be successful, ‘effective working relationships [must be] first established and then maintained’, implying an ongoing process that develops over time. The positive effects of such relationships can be observed in the following:

 feeling a greater sense of ‘zest’ (vitality and energy)  feeling more able to act and being able to act  acquiring a more accurate picture of herself/himself and of other people  feeling a greater sense of worth  feeling more connected to other people and a ‘greater sense of motivation for connections with other people beyond those in the specific relationship’ (Trevithick, 2005: 149–50, citing Miller 1986:3).

These changes, evoking the ‘confidence-building’ observed by MacCallum et al (2005) as an outcome of mentoring, can ‘lead to motivation to engage in change’ (Mason and Prior 2008: 25). One of the key foundations of relationships for change is rapport (Mason and Prior 2008). According to Trevithick (2005) rapport ‘creates the favourable conditions necessary for people to be able to discuss and reveal problems or difficulties, successes or failures, and strengths or weaknesses’ (in Mason and Prior 2008: 25). However, in involuntary settings such as young people complying with court orders, establishing rapport and building trust is especially challenging for practitioners charged with the ‘dual role’ of ‘enforcer’ and ‘helper’ (Trotter 1999 in Mason and Prior 2008: 26-7). This is, again where the skills and expertise of practitioners comes into play.

These skills include the ability to convey warmth, empathy, and ‘genuineness’, building a ‘working alliance based on mutual understanding and agreement about the … treatment’, and using a ‘person-centred or collaborative’ approach (McNeill et al 2005: 4) which involves ‘taking the client’s perspective and using the client’s concepts’ (p.22). Justice workers require additional skills, including ‘the effective use of authority, anti-criminal (or pro-social) modelling and reinforcement, problem solving, and use of community resources’, to be applied, most importantly ‘in the context of relationships that evidence moral legitimacy in the eyes of offenders’ (McNeill et al 2005: 4). As Case and Haines (2014a) argue, legitimacy is just as important for young people, who need to perceive that their treatment and interactions with the youth justice system are ‘moral, fair, deserved, equitable’ (p.6) for them to invest in and commit to working relationships (see also Hine 2004).

Mason and Prior (2008) consider the skills identified by Trevithick (2005) as essential to developing an effective working relationship. These involve conveying or demonstrating:

 acceptance of the individual  empathic understanding  a sense of genuineness and authenticity  a concern for the young person’s self-determination  professional ability to decide whether information needs to be kept confidential  a concern for the young person’s individuality  interest, warmth and generating an atmosphere of trust (in Mason and Prior 2008: 27).

The key themes Mason and Prior (2008: 28-30) draw from these skills are empathy, trust, respect and motivation. They conclude that ‘[s]upportive, engaging relationships develop motivation for change in both compulsory and voluntary settings’ (p.54). Ward (2006) and McNeill et al (2005) also emphasise the importance of mutual respect and trust as central to such relationships. Hill (1999) highlights young people’s desire to be treated as ‘whole’ human beings, not simply in terms of a problem; also, that effective work with young people requires time for trust to develop gradually. Hill (1999) cited findings that ‘young people preferred communication with professionals which did not stress power differentials, was based on reciprocity and alternated listening that led to shared conclusions’ (p.140), echoing the principles of inclusion and participation at the heart of ‘children first, offenders second’ (Haines and Case 2015). Hill’s (1999) study links to findings about adult probationers (equally relevant to young people) who ‘responded positively to probation officers who treated them reasonably and fairly, who showed concern for their well-being and for them as people (rather than as ‘offenders’), and who gave them personal encouragement’ (McNeill 2006: 133).

Hill (1999) also points out the emphasis of resilience-focused work that ‘encourages professionals to work with individual and network strengths, not simply to focus on personal difficulties’ (p.140). This implies a systems approach that aims to build social capital around a young person by engaging and strengthening their social network. This notion of social capital is a strong theme underlying, not only motivation and engagement, but the function of relationships in enabling and constraining people’s inclination and capacity to move away from offending. Social capital is seen as essential to encourage and enable a move away from criminal activity (Barry 2006, 2007; McNeill and Whyte, 2007; Bracken et al 2009). As Hill (1999) concludes, ‘it is vital to work with … informal helpers as much as possible, with the young person identifying in each case who are the relevant confidants and supporters for him or her’ (p.143). Hill also makes the important yet often neglected point ‘not to view peers as largely negative influences. Children help each other a great deal and all adults should be aware of friends and age-mates as actual or potential resources for resolving difficulties’ (p.143). In this way offending peers who play a significant role in shaping young person’s social identity and behaviour might also be seen as resources to draw upon in the motivation, engagement and relationship-building process.

The importance of relationships – young person/worker as well as other relationships which enable or support a child to build a pro-social life – is tied to motivation and engagement and seems to hinge on principles of trust and care. If care offers what Halsey and Deegan (2015:7) describe as a ‘generative moment’ then relationships can also be seen in terms of their pro-social modelling functions. Relationships provide opportunities for generativity – ‘caring for others or creative pursuits’ (Healy and O’Donnell 2008: 27) – which evokes the rehabilitative axiom of leading a ‘productive’ life and is thereby associated with young people’s successful outcomes. The concept of generativity overlaps with notions of ‘giving back’ (McNeill and Maruna, 2007), ‘helping others’ (Burnett and Maruna, 2006; LeBel, 2007), and the transformative power of parenthood (Sampson and Laub, 1993), that give rise to a sense of ‘meaningful purposiveness and a cognitive restructuring towards responsibility’ (Burnett and Maruna 2006: 84-5).

Based on Erikson’s (1950) model of psychosocial development, ‘generativity is assumed to “improve” with age’ (McAdams et al, 1993: 221), or at least develop in line with an individual’s ‘increasing awareness of one’s responsibilities to society as a whole and to those who are younger, weaker, less experienced’ (p. 221). According to Erikson (1950) this phase of development peaks in mid-adulthood. McAdams and Logan (2004) highlight individual

differences in generative inclination or capacity, which they relate to parenting quality, but also that generativity is shaped by culture and expressed in the narratives people use to make sense of their lives. They refer to McAdams and de St Aubin’s (1992) theory of generativity which comprises seven interrelated psychosocial features: cultural demand, inner desire, concern, belief, commitment, action, and personal narration; the meanings and interrelationship of the first six factors are shaped and contained by a person’s ‘subjective story’ (p. 1004).

McAdams and de St Aubin (1992) traced the motivational wellspring of generativity to the first two elements of cultural demand and inner desire, and its expression in personal narrative. Interestingly their other generative elements (concern, belief, commitment, action) echo Hirschi’s (1969) social bonds (attachment, belief, commitment and involvement), illustrating parallels between criminological and psychosocial explanations of human interaction and behaviour. In relation to young people moving away from crime, however, two points stand out: the availability of cultural models on which generative narrative identities might draw; and that caring for others – and the desire to care for others – can form a critical component of the storylines that give our lives ‘a sense of unity, purpose, and pattern’ (McAdams et al 1993: 222). McAdams and de St Aubin (1992) note that for Erikson ‘generativity is an issue for adults, not for children’ (p.1004); they argue, however, that the desire and capacity to care for others is not solely located in mid- adulthood; it can emerge across developmental stages. This suggests that young people, particularly those with the capacity to reflect on their experience, might also be inspired and encouraged to respond to cultural demand and express an inner desire to ‘give back’ to others. These aspects of generativity highlight the close links between relationship and identity, and the social context within which personal narratives are constructed: about who we are, where we come from, what we do and where we belong.

3.2.4 Identity

Young people’s development of a ‘pro-social identity’, or a sense of themselves as a law-abiding citizen, is a theme that runs through rehabilitative and life-changing narratives. This concept reflects psychosocial developmental understandings of identity as a social construct that is fluid, malleable and ‘correctable’. A young person’s ‘criminal identity’, for instance, is measured as a ‘dynamic risk factor’ by Asset-style assessment tools; modelling and reinforcing pro-social norms and behaviours are identified as key features of effective practice with offending groups (Trotter 1999; McNeill et al 2005). But the concept of a pro-social identity also implies a fixed and enduring sense of self that seems to contradict this understanding. The underlying assumption seems to be that if a young person thinks of him or herself as ‘non-criminal’ then his or her behaviour will manifest in non-offending. Of course this is not a linear process; LeBel et al (2008) highlight the ‘chicken-and-egg’ relationship between identity and behaviour. But perhaps, as Valentine (2000) suggests, these are adult concepts that have little resonance or relevance to the experience of young people. The ‘offending/non-offending’ binary suggests a clear unambiguous line between actions which are unlawful, unacceptable and harmful and behaviour that is lawful, acceptable and non-harmful. Yet for young people in the midst of adolescent development that line might not be so clear, or have the same significance. Likewise young people’s sense of themselves as citizens in an adult world is not fixed or clearly defined.

Adolescence is a time of transition from childhood to adulthood, a state of emergence into new roles and new identities. Identity is in flux. Stevens (2012) observes the fluidity and fragility of identity; that rather than having a static, fixed or categorical self, our sense of self evolves through

a developmental process. Stevens (2012) also highlights its iterative, performative and constructivist aspects. Identity emerges through an ongoing process of construction and reconstruction in response to an individual’s experiences and perceptions, as well the expectations and views of others expressed through interactions and relationships with them (both at an interpersonal and institutional level). This iterative process implies a dual aspect to identity: a person’s self-concept, their own sense of who they are; and other peoples’ beliefs and perceptions about them as a person (Jenkins 2004; Wickenden 2011). These aspects vary and may coincide or collide at different times and in different contexts, but the two aspects interact and influence each other. This process begins to develop coherence in adolescence with the emergence of a ‘storied self’ (McAdams 1985, 1993, 1996; Habermas and Bluck 2000; Habermas and Reese 2015).

According to McAdams’ life story model, identity is ‘an internalised and evolving story of self’ (2001: 102), a narrative which ‘explains how the self of yesterday became the self of today and will become the anticipated self of tomorrow’ (McAdams 1995: 382). For physiological, cognitive, social and cultural reasons, this self-narrative process starts to emerge in late adolescence and early adulthood (McAdams 1985, 1995), perhaps with the dawning realisation: ‘I don’t know what I am now, but I am no longer what I was’ (McAdams 2001: 102). For a young person in transition from childhood to adulthood, the integration of their personal past, perceived present and anticipated future into a coherent self-defining inner story is a way of making sense of their experience and giving ‘some unity and purpose’ to their life (McAdams 2001: 101). It is a way of explaining how and where they fit into the adult world by drawing together into one narrative different roles and relationships, as well as their changing values and desires (McAdams 2001). Performing identity is a way of testing and refining the narrative; a way of practising the ‘desirable’ self in a given situation, the self we want others to recognise and honour (Goffman 1959; Riessman 2002; Åkerström et al 2011: 103).

Social and cultural expectations intensify during this period of emerging adulthood as young people are urged explicitly and implicitly to ‘get a life’ (Habermas and Bluck 2000); told ‘[i]t is time to make some decisions about the future’ (McAdams 2001:103). According to Erikson (1950) these changing social relationships and societal expectations are just as important as personal processes in the development of young people’s identities (in McAdams 2001: 103). Yet many writers have highlighted the uncertainty and ambiguity of modern child-adult transitions24. For example, Valentine (2000) observes that, in a contemporary British context particularly, children are defined within competing narratives. On one hand, they are defined in opposition to adults – as ‘asexual, irresponsible, incompetent, vulnerable, human “becomings” in need of protection’ (p.258); on the other, they are increasingly individualised, for instance ‘in relation to rights and entitlements and the commodification of childhood and youth’ (p.258). Young people face many of the same risks, choices and opportunities as adults; this also means they bear the risk of failure, guilt, blame or punishment for their ‘wrong’ choices (Valentine 2000; MacDonald and Marsh 2005; Barry 2007; Bottrell 2007; Kemshall 2008). Within this ‘responsibilising’ narrative, young people marginalised by their experience of social disadvantage or exclusion and/or their offending tend to be identified as risky rather than ‘at risk’ (Armstrong, 2004, 2006). Young people are increasingly dichotomised as either potential ‘citizen-workers’ or needing

24 For example, France, A (2007) Understanding Youth in Late Modernity. UK: McGraw-Hill Education.

‘control and discipline’ (Bottrell and Armstrong 2007: 369); the latter is implied for those whose employment prospects are limited by educational or other societal/structural failings.

What impact do such narratives have on young people’s social identity? One effect is that of stereotyping, whereby negative or risky identities are ascribed to young people by other young people, adults and communities. In her study of teenagers’ experience in inner city Sydney, Australia, Bottrell (2007) distinguishes between young men and women’s chosen identities – ‘claimed and desired’ – and unchosen identities – ‘ascribed by others’ (p.607-8). In response to their experience of marginalisation and ‘othering’, ‘[y]oung people’s struggles to be, and be seen as, who they are, may be seen as struggles for chosen, and against unchosen, social identities.’ (p.608). Bottrell identifies this ‘identity work’ as resistance, in that ‘young people want to be able to define themselves and not be limited by others’ stereotypes’ (p.609). The rewards of choosing an identity associated with a sense of belonging include ‘self-esteem, status and solidarity’ (p.608), suggesting that in crafting their identity, young people will do so in the context of their immediate social relations. An important part of the need for belonging may also be the desire for recognition, if taken to mean ‘acknowledgement, encouragement and affirmation to promote social identity and respect’ (Barry 2015: 2). In terms of the implications for youth justice work, this underscores the importance of seeing young people in the context of – and engaging with – their social network, including seeing peers as potential generative, motivational or problem- solving resources (Hill 1999).

Another effect of ‘risk narratives’ is that young people characterised as ‘risky’ are seen as responsible for their own behaviour and for modifying it. The emphasis is on agency. But the focus on individual agency assumes young people’s capacity to change their thinking and tends to discount structural constraints that limit young people’s ability to change their circumstances (Barry 2007). It also ignores young people’s ‘embeddedness’ in their local worlds (Barn 2011; Munford and Sanders 2015), and the range of social and cultural models available to them (Somers 1994; Valentine 2000). As Somers (1994) observes, ‘people are guided to act in certain ways, and not others, on the basis of the projections, expectations and memories derived from a multiplicity but ultimately limited repertoire of available social, public and cultural narratives’ (p. 614). For instance, Holland, Reynolds and Weller (2007), drawing on three studies in the UK, found that while some young people rely on peer networks to support stressful transitional phases, others experienced their social bonds as ‘highly constraining, tying them into their community. While the networks allowed them to ‘get by’, they stifled individual progression and social mobility’ (p.102). This is what MacDonald and Marsh (2005) call the ‘paradox of networks’: in social capital terms, a lack of social ‘bridging’ capital despite a wealth of social ‘bonding’ capital (in Barry 2007: 10).

This paradox highlights the importance of establishing and maintaining positive lasting relationships, through which ‘pro-social modelling’ can occur, and which can provide bridging capital for young people to draw on in constructing new positive identities. As Giddens’s (1991) describes, identity relies on ‘the capacity to keep a particular narrative going’ (p.54, original emphasis). It is a gradual process that involves the ongoing renegotiation of a person’s self- concept, which requires sustained social support. Bridging social capital is the variety that enables young people to ‘get on’ (Barry 2007), including to be able to move away from offending. Where offending provides status, recognition, identity, and social and symbolic capital (Barry 2007, 2015), an alternative network is required to support the development of a young person’s sense of other possible futures. Munford and Sanders (2015) examined the experience of young

people, aged 13 to 17, involved with services including youth justice in New Zealand. They identified three themes as central to positive identity development: ‘seeking safe and secure connections; finding opportunities to test out identities; and building a sense of agency’ (p.6). Giving young people the opportunity to ‘test out’ possible selves, within a continuum of safety and security, that they might discover and build a sense of their own capacity, draws together the themes of trust and relationship explored above, and emphasises the subjective and relational aspects of identity.

Maruna (2001) revealed the significance of personal narrative in shaping (and reshaping) identity, and the ‘generative script’ favoured by adults moving away from crime (echoing McAdams et al 1993). This may involve ‘finding some sort of ‘‘calling’’ . . . through which [people] find meaning and purpose outside of crime’ (Maruna et al 2004: 279). The ‘finding’ of meaning and purpose here recalls McNeill et al’s (2005) emphasis on the ‘discovery of agency’ and highlights the significance of opportunity as well as an individual’s capacity to direct their own lives – the combination of social and human capital (McNeill et al 2005). Barry (2007) also argues that a focus on individual agency must be anchored in a structural context, recognising the role of the wider society to provide and maintain ‘meaningful opportunities for young people in the transition to adulthood’ (p.6). Giordano, Cernkovich and Rudolph (2002) similarly highlight the critical interplay between personal agency and social structure. According to Maruna et al (2004), ‘both societal reactions and ‘‘agentic’’ experiences are necessary, but neither is sufficient alone’ (p.279).

Maruna (2001) recognised that to move away from crime, people ‘need to develop a coherent, pro-social identity for themselves’ (p.8), or what Giordano et al (2002) describe as a ‘replacement self’. According to Giordano et al’s (2002: 1000-1002) ‘theory of cognitive transformation’ the process of moving away from crime comprises four elements:

 A shift in a person’s ‘basic openness to change’  A person’s exposure to and attitude towards ‘hooks for change’  Their imagining and forging of an appealing and conventional ‘replacement self’  A significant shift in the way a person views crime and offending lifestyles.

What might the role of workers be in supporting young people’s development of a positive identity and a sustained pro-social self-story? McAdams (1995) contends it is only ‘when people have been involved in long-term intensive relationships with each other [that] they may know … [how the other] makes sense of his or her own life in narrative terms’ (p.383). To really understand how a young person sees themselves, and to be able provide safe, secure connections and opportunities for them to test out new identities – ‘confident new learner identities characterised by enhanced self-efficacy’ (Stephenson et al 2014: 131) for instance – so that they can discover and exercise agency (McNeill et al 2005), takes time. This has implications for practice in terms of the length of time workers are able to engage in building and maintaining relationships with young people.

In addition, to see and fully know someone as a whole person requires seeing that person in a range of situations and settings (McAdams 1995; Wickenden 2011). This allows a view of ‘offending as a normalised and minor element of a child’s broader identity and behaviour’ (Case and Haines 2014b: 7), rather than its singularly defining characteristic (Drakeford, 2010). The development of a young person’s identity occurs through iterative processes of construction and negotiation; identities are honed through practice and performance. It is in adolescence that this

process is arguably most intense. Giddens’s (1991: 54) emphasis on identity as ‘the capacity to keep a particular narrative going’ (p. 54) highlights the need for others people’s reactions and expectations to guide and support – rather than blame or constrain – young people’s development of a positive and sustainable self-concept which can bridge their transition to adulthood. These themes and concepts provide a framework for the study within which to analyse the findings and attempt to understand their implications.

4. Methodology

Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to collect and analyse information for this study. A quantitative approach was useful for gathering and depicting the extent and patterns of any reoffending among the young people in the original cohort, since 2009-10. A statistical picture of their offending trajectories provides important background to the stories of how the young people’s lives changed. Understanding the more subjective elements of the young people’s lives and experiences, however, required a qualitative strategy; a way to capture meanings and the processes of meaning-making that underpin and drive social action, interactions and behaviour. 4.1 A narrative approach

With the above purpose in mind, the research took a narrative analytical approach (Riessman, 1993, 2002) to understanding the experience of young people involved in prolific offending as teenagers. From this perspective, ‘narrative’ is seen ‘as a form of social life, a form of knowledge, and a form of communication’ (Czarniawska, 2004: 14). Narrative involves story-telling, which is ‘what we do with our research materials and what informants do with us’ (Riessman, 2002: 218). Thus method and methodology become intertwined in a reflexive research process, a process rendered naturalistic by the mode of inquiry mirroring the way humans inquire about experience (Sandelowski, 1995).

This broad narrative strategy incorporated the following three methodological strands:

1) collecting narratives about the theory and practice of youth justice in Wales, how it is conceptualised and implemented; 2) interpreting narratives about young people’s offending behaviour and examining the way these narratives are constructed and used; and 3) eliciting and analysing the personal and social narratives of people with histories of prolific offending.

The first strand involved textual analysis of policy documents, government reports and academic writing related to the theories and philosophy underpinning and shaping youth justice practice in Wales. Interviews with YOT managers added to these practice narratives. The second strand examined how young people involved in prolific and persistent offending were constructed in practitioner and ‘official’ narratives, drawing on semi-structured interviews with YOT workers, as well as risk/need assessments, case notes and other professional accounts of young people, particularly those with complex needs, contained in YOT records. The third strand entailed in- depth, face-to-face narrative interviews with adults with histories of prolific offending as teenagers, who were part of the original YJB Cymru sample.

To gather stories, narrative interviewers enter into dialogue with their participants (Fraser, 2004). With an ear attuned to wider policy and theoretical discourses, ‘narrative researchers … [also] consider how culture, and social structures, surface in the stories participants and researchers tell’ (Fraser, 2004: 182). Taking ‘as its object of investigation the story itself’, narrative analysis ‘opens up the forms of telling about an experience, not simply the content to which language refers. We ask, why was the story told that way?’ (Riessman, 2002: 218). This

approach enables the researcher to trace the storylines embedded in accounts of policy, practice and lived experience, as well as the social structural and cultural context of those accounts.

Vindrola-Padros and Johnson (2014) suggest that meanings can be found in the way stories are told: ‘what was narrated, nonnarrated, and disnarrated’ (p.1603); that is, what the teller included, what they did not include and details added which may not have taken place. Analysing narrative in this way allows insight into the construction of experience and identity which is useful in two ways: to map or ‘story’ changes in lives, thinking and practice across time; and to bring ‘hegemonic tales’ as well as ‘subversive stories’ to the surface (Ewick and Silbey, 1995). This latter point is important for research examining a social phenomenon involving vulnerable social actors, such as young people involved in the justice system, as it allows a range of voices to be heard. 4.2 An interpretivist, interactionist framework

Underlying the study’s narrative methodology is an interpretivist perspective in that it is focused on ‘culturally derived and historically situated interpretations of the social life-world’ (Crotty 1998: 67). This perspective emphasises meanings and interpretations that are contained in the way stories are told, and experiences and understandings are communicated. It seeks to understand in order to explain social action and phenomena (Weber, 1962 and Weiss, 1986 in Crotty, 1998: 69), in this case prolific offending among young people. The underlying epistemology (or ‘way of knowing’) is constructionist, which assumes that as human beings we participate in the construction of social reality through our actions and interactions and the meanings ascribed to and generated by these. ‘We construct meaning’ from the world around us (Crotty, 1998: 44). Constructionism thus assumes an ongoing interplay between the objective and the subjective, or what can be described as the world around us and the sense we make of it. The notions of meaning, interpretation, action and experience are embedded in the research questions and have shaped the design of the study. The combination of qualitative and quantitative methods reflects a constructionist orientation to knowledge in that the researcher employs a range of tools in the construction and interpretation of meaning (Crotty, 1998).

In terms of a theoretical framework for the research, symbolic interactionism (Mead, 1934) fits with the study’s interpretivist, constructionist perspective and provides the logic for its focus on meanings and how they are interpreted, communicated and performed. Mead’s symbolic interactionism holds three fundamental tenets (Blumer, 1969 in Crotty, 1998: 72) which can be summarised as follows:

 we act towards things on the basis of the meanings those things have for us;  these meanings are generated through interactions between ourselves and others;  we make meaning through interpreting the events and experiences we encounter.

A central notion of symbolic interactionism is putting oneself in the place of another. This idea underpins the study’s focus on understanding the subjective experience and perspective of those involved in the youth justice system. It also connects to an important theme in this field of enquiry: ‘offending’ involves social interaction in that an offence is committed against another (whether individual victim, legal rule or social norm); working with young people to reduce their offending demands the recognition of the ‘other’ against whom the offence is committed. Symbolic interactionism also directs research attention to the process and effects of labelling and

social reactions to offending behaviour (Lemert, 1951; Becker, 1963). Assumptions about the need to avoid stigmatising young people and the idea of diversion, as well as much restorative justice practice, draw directly upon labelling concepts. These principles have shaped youth justice policy and practice and are implicit in the notion of ‘children first, offenders second’. In addition, symbolic interactionist principles underpin theories about social control mechanisms, social bonds and young people’s relationships to others, as well as the development of the self-concept and social identity. These themes are seen as important in understanding both the factors that lead young people into serious and high-volume offending and the pathways out of such patterns of behaviour.

Before describing the methods, it might be useful at this point to sketch out some of the factors characterising the young people at the centre of this study. 4.3 Methods

4.3.1 Snapshot of the ‘prolific’ cohort in 2009-10

The earlier work by YJB Cymru (2012) identified a total number of 303 young people in Wales who had committed 25 or more offences in 2009 and who reoffended in 2010. Just over a third (n117) of this ‘prolific’ cohort was sampled. The profile of this sample revealed some characteristics of the 117 young people that are briefly summarised here (Figs. 4 and 5 below) (and depicted in Figs. 6-14: see Appendix 2). These are drawn from 2009-10 data gathered in 2012.

Figure 4 Characteristics of the ‘prolific’ young men Figure 5 Characteristics of the ‘prolific’ young women

 Over half had experience of abuse (i.e.  8 out of 10 had experience of abuse (i.e. physical, sexual, emotional, or neglect) physical, sexual, emotional, or neglect).  Nearly half had witnessed family violence  4 out of 10 had witnessed family violence  1 in 3 had experienced significant  7 out of 10 had experienced significant bereavement or loss bereavement or loss

 7 out of 10 experienced inconsistent  3 out of 4 experienced inconsistent supervision/lack of boundaries at home supervision/lack of boundaries at home

 2 out of 3 were in contact with family  Over half were in contact with family members involved in criminal activity members involved in criminal activity  Nearly half lived with ‘known offenders’  Over half lived with ‘known offenders’  3 out of 4 reported mainly pro-criminal  7 out of 10 reported mainly pro-criminal peers, and a lack of non-criminal friends peers, and a lack of non-criminal friends  4 out of 10 of all the young people were  4 out of 10 of all the young people were not in work, school or training of any kind not in work, school or training of any kind

 1 in 4 offended to fund substance use.  1 in 6 offended to fund substance use.

 85% were male (n100), 15% female (n17).  92% were aged between 15 and 17 years of age, with just under half (47%) aged 17  99% were identified as White British (reflecting the broader Welsh population)  86% had received their first reprimand or caution between the ages of 10 and 14, and 37% at the age of 10 or 11.  94% of young people had received their first conviction by their 16th birthday  Over half had received at least one custodial sentence, with 68 young people receiving a total 110 custodial sentences between them. (YJB, Cymru, 2012)

At that time, very few of the young people in the prolific offending cohort were living with both parents: only 15% lived with both their ‘mother and father’ (Fig.6). Over half the young people had family members (with whom they had been in contact over the last six months) who were involved in criminal activity (Fig.7). Another common theme within the cohort was inconsistent supervision and boundary setting; this was a feature of the home environment for seven out of ten young people (Fig.8). The experience of abuse was also a common factor among the cohort: of the 102 where this information was known, 58% of the boys and 80% of the girls had experience of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse and/or neglect (see Fig.9).

The significance of peer group influence in the lives of the young people involved in prolific offending is unsurprising: three quarters of the young men and seven out of ten girls reported ‘associating with predominantly pro-criminal peers’ (Fig.10); the same number reported a ‘lack of non-criminal friends’ (Fig.11). More than 80% of the young people said they had ‘nothing much to do in their spare time’ (Fig.12), and over three quarters reported participating in ‘reckless activity’ (Fig.13). Another factor was poverty (Fig.14) with over half the young people citing ‘inadequate personal income’ as a factor linked to their offending. These factors underlie most offenders whose frequent or prolific criminal activities bring them to the attention of the youth justice system (YJB 2013: 24 and Chapter 10 and YJB, 2015).

4.3.2 Data collection

The sample and sampling rationale In the first stage of the research, the 117 young people identified as prolific in the earlier profiling study (YJB Cymru, 2012) provided the sample for the case file analysis and reoffending data gathering. Some of these cases, however, could not be relocated in the follow-up; data was either misidentified or had been lost in the subsequent transfer of case file data from one software system to another. One young person showed up twice (his file was transferred between YOTs after his family moved). Two individual cases were removed from the sample at the request of the YOT. In the end, of the original 117 cases, 103 remained. Two of the YOTs in the earlier study were unable to participate in the follow-up research, except to provide reoffending data. This meant 21 young people’s case files were not available for analysis, leaving 82 young people whose case files were analysed using YOT records (70% of the original sample). Reflecting a similar gender ratio to the original sample, this group consisted of 69 boys (84%) and 13 girls (16%). The young people in the study were assigned codes to ensure their anonymity. The 103 young

people were divided by gender (87 boys and 16 girls) and ascribed a simple identifier: ‘Boys’ are B1 to B87; ‘Girls’ are G1 to G1625. Place names have also been changed to protect privacy.

Nine of the 82 cases (eight boys and one girl) were chosen for deeper qualitative analysis, drawing on YOT records and in some cases interviews with the young people’s workers and one of the young people themselves. Pseudonyms were assigned to these young people, to protect their identity yet to give them a human voice. Welsh names were chosen26and assigned alphabetically to the sample. The nine case studies were selected purposively with the aim of building in-depth understanding of a range of factors emerging across the prolific offending group. For instance, three children (‘Alis’, ‘Aron’ and ‘Bryn’) belonging to one extended kin network in a particular post-industrial, semi-rural setting were selected on the basis of their familial relationships, to examine similarities and differences in their offending experiences and outcomes. Similarly, two brothers – fifteen months apart, brought up in the same house but with very different issues and outcomes – were selected for comparative purposes. Some young people’s case files were judged to be particularly information-rich or to exemplify specific phenomena associated with their offending. Some illustrated particular identities, behaviours, experiences or forms of interaction with the YOT or other professionals which were deemed worthy of closer analysis.

This first phase also included interviews with 19 YOT workers and/or managers, and a focus group with YJB Cymru staff. This number of YOT staff was expected to yield sufficient data from which to draw out common themes based on the principle of category saturation (Saumure and Given 2008). YJB Cymru staff members were sampled using a convenience strategy: staff were included if they were present at one of the regular staff meetings at the YJB Cymru office that allowed time for a focus group to be held.

The second phase of the research comprised in-depth semi-structured narrative interviews with young people – now aged 20+ – who were part of the original ‘prolific’ cohort. It had been hoped to interview up to ten young adults; in the end four were interviewed. It was initially anticipated that it would be extremely difficult to find these young people, particularly if they were no longer in contact with the justice system – the ‘success’ stories, the ones who had managed to avoid further offending and/or conviction. For this reason the research initially included a ‘Plan B’ sample27 comprising other adults with histories of prolific offending as teenagers, to gather their perspective on what may have helped them – or not – to reduce their offending at different times in their lives. The rationale for this plan was to enlarge the pool of potential participants. This group would have been accessed via Police officers attached to YOTs and the probation service.

However, initial conversations with YOT staff suggested that some of the young people in the earlier cohort had remained in contact with staff, either via occasional communication with the YOT or through other community networks. It was possible, therefore, to trace some of the original young people for interviews, to gather their views about what helped them – and what made it hard – to stay out of trouble at different times. Some of these young adults had managed

25 Some young people’s case files were not analysed but their reoffending data were gathered, so for this reason the whole 103 cases were given codes. 26 The names were selected from www.welshgirlsnames.co.uk and www.welshboysnames.co.uk. 27 Though broadening the study beyond its current scope, this would enrich future work by allowing researchers to compare and contrast the self-narratives of the original sample (now aged 20-24 years) with a slightly older cohort who shared a similar trajectory, to examine any shifts or continuities in those trajectories and in the accompanying storylines, and to gain a slightly more longitudinal perspective.

to leave offending behind; others remained caught up in the justice system. Gaining access to both groups relied on an opportunistic, ‘snowball’ or reputational sampling strategy, building on trusted relationships already established between the young people and their former workers. YOT workers were approached to locate and help recruit young people from the original sample to invite them to participate in an interview. Where young adults were in prison or on probation, sampling could proceed only after National Offender Management Service (NOMS) had granted ethics approval for these interviews.

First stage data collection As indicated, the first stage of the research involved a range of data collection methods, including:

 Gathering national and local policy and strategic data from Welsh Government, YJB Cymru and YOT documents, to understand the way data about young people’s offending is collected and how it is used; this included a focus group with YJB staff.  Detailed case-file analysis of YOT records for young people in the original sample, up to the age of 18 years (or the time they left the YOT).  Case studies of 8 to 10 of the young people, involving deeper qualitative analysis of their Asset records as well as the archived hard copy case files.  Analysis of up-to-date reoffending data from PNC records; and  Interviews with YOT workers and managers.

Following initial desktop review of academic, government and policy literature, fieldwork began by going back to the 103 cases locatable from the original sample of 117, drilling down into their detail and examining follow-up data to build a picture of those young people’s offending trajectories six years later. Case file information and reoffending data was gathered during visits to YOTs that were involved in the earlier study. The purpose was to replicate and expand upon the 2009-10 data and by examining assessments, case notes and ‘evidence’ written by case workers in the files of young people, to start to build the narrative around young people’s offending behaviour and the factors associated with patterns of prolific offending.

Between March and July 2015, eight of the ten Welsh YOTs in the original study were visited, spending up to four days at each site gathering data. This required electronic access to the YOT’s case management database (Childview or YOIS28) which was arranged prior to each visit. Each YOT sits within a different local authority through which access had to be negotiated. Access to Police National Computer (PNC) data was also negotiated separately, either via individual Police officers based at each YOT or centrally through regional Police headquarters.

Third party agreements – from IT access to data processing – varied from site to site and took varying lengths of time to complete. While a centralised one-off approach would have ensured uniformity across the data, due to the ad hoc means of access to data at each site, the reoffending data collection yielded inconsistent results. This meant that different portions of the data were analysed separately, presenting a segmented picture of the reoffending patterns across the sample. The table below shows the variation in the reoffending data gathered across the ten YOTs.

28 Careworks is a case management database used by some YOTs, however not by any that were visited.

Table 5 Variation in reoffending data gathered across ten YOTs YOT Type of reoffending data gathered: code: No. of offences Most frequent Most serious Age at last Last offence (found Last since YOT offence offence offence guilty) and date sentence YOT1       YOT2 n/a      YOT3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a YOT4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a YOT5 n/a      YOT6 n/a     n/a YOT7 n/a      YOT8      n/a YOT9       YOT10  n/a n/a   

The earlier study (YJB Cymru, 2012) did not collect any qualitative detail in four areas of the Asset which are considered central to the focus of the current research: 9) Perception of self and others; 10) Thinking and behaviour; 11) Attitudes to offending; and 12) Motivation to change. The original study recorded the scores in these domains, but none of the evidence. The starting point for the data collection therefore, in revisiting the Asset records and case files of the young people identified in the earlier study, was to gather the evidence recorded in these four domains. (The elements of these domains are depicted in Table 6: Appendix 3).

This initial phase of the research also included in-depth semi-structured interviews with YOT workers and managers as well as a focus group with YJB Cymru personnel. The purpose of these interviews and focus group were as follows:

 YOT workers – to gain practitioners’ perspectives on changes in prolific offending patterns and prevalence, and their experience working with young people involved in high-volume offending;

 YOT managers – to gain their views on the impact of strategic changes in youth justice policy and practice; and

 YJB Cymru staff – to provide background information on youth justice policy in Wales.

The characteristics of the YOT staff and managers interviewed are outlined in Table 7 (see Appendix 4).

Archived hard copy case files29 were requested at the first three YOTs visited for the purposes of augmenting the information in the electronic records with material contained in the paper files. As these young people had been prolific in their offending, their contact with the YOTs had often taken place over years and, consequently, their files were extensive. The hard copy records consisted of manila folders containing copies of correspondence to and about the young person, police and court reports and professional referrals, plans and assessments. These physical artefacts ranged in size from two manila folders, each three inches thick30, to a whole box full of

29 YOTs are required to keep these documents for up to five years after which time they are to be destroyed, longer for young people who are ‘looked after’ (Advice on Information Management in Youth Offending Teams (England), YJB 2011). 30 This was only part of the file belonging to a child who had transferred between two YOTs.

folders, one for each order (as shown in Fig.15). At one YOT these records had been digitised; for each young person, multiple ‘pdf’ folders contained between 598 and 2,459 pages. The sheer magnitude of this information limited any depth of analysis; nevertheless, it provided some additional insights into the way the young people were constructed, represented and responded to in and via official and professional accounts.

Copies of notifications to young people from their ISSP coordinator, for instance, revealed very different tones and styles in the way workers communicated to young people. In contrast to workers’ standard ‘official’ and very formal letters of warning of a young person’s impending breach of their order, the positive framing and encouraging language of this letter (to a young person in breach of their court-ordered curfew) stood out:

I am really enjoying working with you [YP’s name]. You have loads of potential and it would be a pity to spoil your good progress by slipping up with further breaches.

THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING.

Figure 15 Archived case files at a YOT, one box per young person

It was not immediately clear what sort of meanings – if any – could be gleaned from such an example, but it certainly prompted questions. To what extent did the tone of this letter signify a positive and encouraging way of engaging with young people by a particular worker, or at this particular YOT? Was this reflective of more or less punitive attitudes, styles or cultures across different YOTs? And would such differences be apparent in other aspects of the YOTs’ work? These were important questions to think about as the data collection progressed.

Second stage data collection The second phase of the study involved interviewing people with histories of prolific offending as teenagers, drawn from the 2009-10 sample. The first of these took place at one of the YOTs where the workers had maintained good relationships with many of the young people – now young adults – with whom they had worked intensively over many years. Three of the young men from the original cohort were identified as having avoided conviction for a period of time and could therefore be approached and invited to participate, without requiring NOMS ethics approval, since they were not under any form of court order. This provided a way of pilot testing the interview questions with the young adults about their prolific offending history.

Introductory letters, informal in tone, as well as the more formal Participant Information and Consent Forms were given to the YOT workers who then contacted the young men to inform them of the research project and invite them to participate in an interview. The workers, who were well known and trusted by the young men, arranged for them to attend the YOT, all on the same day, to meet for the interviews. Interviews took place at the YOT and were audio recorded, with participants’ permission, to enable subsequent transcription and analysis. Interviews took

between 25 and 40 minutes. The young men were each given a £10 voucher31 as a small token of appreciation for their participation in the research. They all said that they had chosen to participate because they felt indebted to the YOT whose unflagging support had helped them make changes in their lives. This theme emerged strongly throughout the interviews.

Once NOMS approval was received to proceed with this stage of the data collection, YOT workers were contacted to ask about any of the young adults who were now in custody or on probation. Once it was established that some of the young men were in custody in Wales, at HMP Parc, Swansea or Cardiff access to each prison was negotiated individually to arrange interviews where possible. Out of this process only one visit and interview with a young man at HMP Parc where he was serving a seven-month sentence was granted. Prison security gave permission for the interview to be recorded using a handheld digital voice recorder, enabling later transcription.

4.3.3 Data analysis

Thematic analysis of YJB and Welsh Government policy documents and academic literature was undertaken to deconstruct the use of particular discourses of youth justice policy and practice. Polkinghorne (1995) distinguishes two types of narrative inquiry to show how data may be analysed in different ways: 1) the analysis of narratives to produce paradigmatic typologies or categories; and 2) narrative analysis which produces stories such as biographies, histories and case studies. Whereas a paradigmatic approach was relevant to the analysis of some of the textual data, including governmental and policy documents, the latter narrative mode was applied to discursive accounts embodying personal experience, social histories and life stories. This analytic method focused on the telling of the story itself (Riessman, 2002): what was included, what was not said, and any perceived embellishment (Vindrola-Padros, 2014).

In addition, analysis of narratives gleaned through close readings of case files and earlier analysis of policy documents considered questions such as:

 What relationship do the stories have to particular discourses?  Do the stories support, negate or unsettle specific claims made about relevant discourses?  Are there ideas raised that theorists/social commentators do not mention? (Fraser 2004).

All interviews were transcribed verbatim, either by the researcher or a professional transcription service. The transcripts were analysed, line by line (Fraser, 2004) to identify meanings, themes and signifiers of social, structural and cultural context as interpreted, experienced and expressed by the participants, both in language and non-verbal cues where these were discernible via interview recordings or field notes.

Themes that emerged through this process are explored below, starting with the YOT worker/manager interview data. Then, in chapter six, themes emerging from the stories and experience of the young people are presented in five sections: analysis of reoffending; case studies of eight boys and one girl; interviews with some of the young men, now young adults; a summary of themes emerging from the case files, case studies and interview data; and then a typology drawing on all these threads.

31 A voucher for a stationery, book and gift retailer with outlets across Wales. For the young man in custody, this was sent to his mother’s address, via his former YOT worker.

5. Findings: YOT workers and managers

(Photo taken by Diana Johns, 2015) 5.1 What does ‘prolific’ offending mean?

The YOT workers/managers interviewed all conceived of prolific offending in different ways, with varying degrees of certainty. Many referred to the range of ‘different definitions’ (YW15): ‘Three offences a year, that’s prolific, isn’t it?’ (YW02); ‘four sentencing exercises in a year or something like that?’ (YW16). Several cited the ‘25+ offences’ classification but expressed doubt about its usefulness. Some pointed out the vague and ‘arbitrary’ (YW02) nature of the term and its lack of practical or theoretical value. It was seen to mask complexity and individual difference. These comments are illustrative:

I think it’s just a very complicated thing. I don’t like the terminology at all…. I don’t find it useful at all (YW04)

You get so many different people with so many different situations with different stories – I cannot see the point of labelling somebody a ‘prolific offender’. (YW02)

It can be the anti-social behaviour as well can’t it, which is more of a grey area … it’s not always offending (YW08)

Most characterised prolific offending in terms of ‘persistence and frequency’ (YW09): ‘high volume offending’ (YW08), ‘ongoing [and] constant offending’ (YW18), and ‘repeatedly coming back’ (YW09) through the courts and through the YOT. One comment clearly differentiates this ‘prolific’ group from the more easily diverted type of young person who may commit one, two, even a few offences but then ‘goes away’ (and stays away):

It’s the persistence of offending, it’s coming back, it’s not kids who do something, get an order, and go away. … [T]hey might go away for a bit but [they] come back again. (YW08)

These young people’s ‘complex needs’ (YM07, YW11) were seen to constrain their capacity – and workers’ capacity to help them – to stay away from crime, as these comments suggest:

In spite of efforts to deviate away from crime they seem entrenched in offending behaviours and continue to offend despite our best efforts. (YW15)

Somehow, when we’re intervening, we’re not having the impact that we would like. (YM07)

An interesting disparity emerged in the conception of the time frame around this type of behaviour. Many workers associated prolific offending with ‘entrenched’ (YM07, YW15) or ‘ingrained’ (YW10) patterns of behaviour, and ‘offending over a prolonged [‘significant’] period of time’ (YW04 [YW10]), stressing persistence. Others, however, understood ‘prolific’ to mean ‘a lot’ of offending (YW12, YW13 and YW17) but ‘in a short period of time’ (YW12, YW06). This latter emphasis on frequency characterised prolific offending in terms of the amount of harm or disruption caused to a community:

Some young people … cause chaos to be honest, for a couple of weeks, a couple of months, and then they might just disappear, or they may continue. But normally prolific is the word because … they would be causing a lot of offences in neighbourhoods. (YW14)

The ‘nature of the offending’ (YW18) also featured in workers’ understandings. For some, this meant the seriousness of the offences: ‘it’s not petty crime, is it?’ (YW18). A few reflected on localised factors to do with a particular time: for instance, ‘in the late 1990s, a significant proportion … of the caseload would be to do with boys and car crime … [But] nobody steals cars anymore’ (YW02).

While ‘high risk of reoffending’ (YW06) was noted, such risk was also understood as the interplay between the ‘high risk of a harmful behaviour, offending behaviour and vulnerability’ (YW18). Others talked about the risks of criminalisation to which young people are susceptible if ‘their concerning behaviour is prolific’ (YW02), often for minor offences (YW05, YW09) or ‘anti-social behaviour’ (YW08). As YW05 explained, ‘you can get into that prolific bracket by very minor yet accumulative offences’, as this young person ‒ whose re-offence was ‘relatively minor’ (YW09) ‒ shows:

He got into a row with a guard on a train … He’s got about ten offences going back, and it’s shoplifting, theft, minor assaults … you think even though they’re minor … there are indicators there that he’s willing to take risks in all sorts of areas, whether it be in a shop, on a train, where he’s got an audience of other young people. So it can look relatively minor on paper but when you group the behaviours together you’re thinking well if he turns round and really does something serious one day you can’t really be surprised by that. (YW09)

Much ‘prolific’ offending consisted of ‘anti-social behaviour’ that became criminalised once a young person was subject to – and then breached – an ASBO. One YOT manager explains the impact of this legislative change:

One thing … that’s changed is the rate of young people with anti-social behaviour breaches, order breaches, they get custody. … If you’ve got one ASBO, you can guarantee that person’s going to breach it. We’ve had a young girl go [to custody], only last week, for further offences but numerous breaches of anti-social behaviour order. (YM07) 5.2 What happens to these young people into adulthood?

Those who had worked with young people in the prolific group agreed that many ended up in the adult system, having become habituated to offending: ‘because they’re so entrenched … any behaviour is hard to get out of once you’re in that’ (YW10). YW12 describe seeing former ‘clients’ in the city centre ‘hanging out with a drug and alcohol taking group’ or at ‘a drop in centre for

homeless people’. YW12 also emphasised, however, that over twelve years she had seen ‘a vast majority that turn their lives around’:

I see quite a few leading very successful and positive lives, it’s not all doom and gloom … I do think that the majority of young people turn it around. … [One] young person … his girlfriend has recently had a baby, and he seems to be turning it around, he has started work. He is still on an order with us but people’s lives change… (YW12)

She differentiates these from:

A minority … who become embroiled in a sort of criminal community, a lifestyle, and they end up being partners with each other, drug taking together and offending together inevitably. (YW12)

A small proportion had their lives cut short as a result of their offending lifestyles:

I’ve got a photograph of some of those young people on my wall in the office and a couple of them are dead. One died recently, they were being chased by a police car. … He had a child. (YW02)

For many there are lapses into offending interspersed with ‘doing okay’:

I bump into the parents of one of them who says he is intermittently doing okay. He’s got three children and intermittently not doing so okay. (YW02)

A small minority end up ‘doing well’:

I have worked with a couple that when I had them they were like in the spotlight and they’re doing really well now. [It’s not inevitable?] No (YW10)

I bump into another one who is doing quite well. [‘Paul’] is doing okay, has a house and a family (YW02).

Some young people reproduce the violence they have grown up with, such as this boy who had:

…huge domestic violence between parents, huge attachment issues ... Dad was very hot and cold with him and he’d make him jump through hoops just to get attention. ... At that age he was vulnerable and it was all about his vulnerability, but as he got older it became about his risk because he then morphed into what his dad was. (YW10)

This example highlights some important themes running through the data: vulnerability, risk, and the role of parents in young people’s lives. 5.3 Characteristics of this ‘prolific’ group

YOT workers and managers agreed that young people involved in prolific offending are not a homogenous group: there are ‘no hard and fast rules’ (YW10), they are all different. There was, however, a common perception of the complexity of these young people’s lives – ‘there’s a lot of issues’ (YW10), often involving ‘some connection with drugs or alcohol’ (YW13):

substance misuse or family issues, or just lack of boundaries and attachment issues and self- harming as well … with cars sometimes, it’s not about the excitement of the cars, sometimes it’s about that self-harming behaviour of taking a car, crashing it. (YW10)

YW02 saw the ‘prolific’ group of young people as essentially the same as other young people except that they have experienced significant ‘absences’ in their lives:

I can probably express more what they’re like in terms of their absences in their lives than actually the characteristics they possess because, in many ways, they possess the same characteristics as most young people really, boundary pushing, a sense of growth and development into the world and adventuring. (YW02)

These absences were implicit in many of the workers’ accounts, not so much in terms of the young people’s individual deficits but what was missing from their lives in terms of care, support and opportunities to succeed and to be valued. For example, YW02 attributed characteristics such as a ‘casual attitude towards drugs, sex, the fact that their actions have got consequences, that people can be hurt and upset’ to the fact that ‘they haven’t … picked up much schooling’, and to ‘indifferent parenting’:

…either through commission – the parents have actually been positively harmful to the children – or through acts of omission where there’s been neglect, or through stupidity – really, really stupid parents. Parents who are just plunged into difficulty… (YW02)

The common theme of ‘bad childhoods and really sad cases’ (YW18) meant that many of the young people in this ‘prolific’ cohort ‘really didn’t really have much chance in terms of their upbringing’ (YW02). These are ‘the kids … who really don’t seem to care what happens to them or anyone else really’ (YW08). ‘A lot of them had criminality… [and many had] no father, no father figure’ (YW18), which meant many mothers struggled to set boundaries for their children, as this worker observed:

I think addressing the issue of boundaries when you’re a lone parent of three children and being a consistent boundary setter is very difficult. Accepting help is difficult, the way that the help services are set up. (YW02)

Domestic violence (YW10), dysfunction and intra-family criminality (YW18), as well as inter- family criminal ties, characterised some young people’s experience:

Families with drug problems, looked after children, siblings, associates, a lot of family connections there. Two of those boys, one had a baby with the sister of that one, and we’ve got four different members of that family… (YW13)

For many of these young people, their peers and associates become their family:

...it’s like a sense of belonging to them, they don’t feel part of their families and they get a sense of belonging, of being with their peer offenders … they treat them as family … it’s ok to do what they’re doing because it’s normal. (YW14)

One worker gave an example of the pervasive criminality and disruption that became normalised in some families, such as this boy’s:

The day he was remanded his mother came out of [prison] two days after and his sister’s been through on an RJD, his dad’s never been around. (YW09)

His complexity stemmed from accumulated disadvantage:

He’s not been in school, not been in education. He had meningitis when he was nine years old and I’ve always thought that that’s left a trace on him and I’ve tried to get him into a speech and language therapist for an assessment, just a cognitive assessment. I’m not saying he’s got a learning disability, but I think there’s something there. (YW09)

The lack of boundaries some children experience makes it difficult for schools and other agencies and services to meet their needs:

It’s really difficult because the more you set boundaries for people who haven’t ever had boundaries and don’t like them, the more they’re going to push. The more spectacular ways they’re going to find to break them. (YW02)

Some noted the effects of sustained systemic involvement, such as among looked after children (LAC), which manifest in normalised expectations about rule-breaking and challenging boundaries, because ‘that’s what you do’:

Sometimes I think with young people that are being looked after or heavily involved in social services, I think they get into a groove of behaving a certain way because they’re mixing with others. You get a lot of absconsion from residential placements and then it’s obviously ‘let’s go out and do something’. So there’s a bit of that as well. … Sometimes I think they struggle with themselves because they know that what they’re doing is wrong but there’s an expectation that you’re living here, that’s what you do. (YW10)

YW10 also identified different currents underlying young people’s ‘struggle with themselves’: for some,

There’s an undercover mentality and it’s very anti-authority so it’s like ‘let’s go purposely go against the services’. But I think others are just they’re out of control just because they’re out of control and they can’t stop it themselves. But then you’ve got the other lot who will do something every now and then. (YW10)

These data suggest three drivers for young people’s prolific offending: being ‘anti-authority’; being ‘out of control’; and ‘every now and then’ responding to ruptures or crises in their lives. All three imply different degrees to which the young person’s emerging sense of self might be linked to their offending behaviour. The ‘anti-authority’ mentality may signify a more deeply held sense of opposition and/or resistance – to rules, structures, being told what to do – than those who are ‘out-of-control’ or ‘every-now-and-then’. Also acknowledged is that some young people in similar circumstances do not react by offending, affirming that it is not solely the environment or the individual that shapes behaviour but the interaction between them. 5.4 Things that tend to exacerbate young people’s offending

There was agreement among workers about ‘the standard things’ (YW10) that tended to make young people’s offending worse:

Just things going on in their lives ... breakdown in accommodation. Yes, breakdown in relationships as well and arguments. The escalation in substance misuse and not having a training placement. Yes, just the standard things… (YW10)

Difficult circumstances tend to intensify the lure of offending peers – ‘likeminded people’ (YW06) – and substance misuse. Peaks or intensification in offending for many young people reflected times of crisis, transitions or ruptures in support, such as for this young man for whom ‘the tough thing’ (YW10) is:

He’s got restraining orders against dad and ex-girlfriend. His mum has had a stroke, she’s in hospital. So anybody important to him, he can’t have access to or he can’t see. Drugs are huge, so complicated for him. We’ve got him in a secure placement… (YW10)

As well as going into care, custody can be one such rupture that, for some young people, ‘just sends them down a slippery slope really’ (YW17). In cases where young people received a relatively short sentence, such as a four month DTO, it could increase their risk of reoffending:

…so they were only in custody for two months but then we used to struggle then on licence because we only had two months to sort of deal with all the resettlement issues and it just wasn’t long enough. Whereas had they had a lengthy community order they could have had, at the time, a two-year supervision order, so it would give us a lot more time to stabilise them in the community. (YW17)

While for some young people custody was a deterrent (discussed below), for others going to a YOI had the opposite effect:

It didn’t deter, they loved it ... all their buddies were there so it was like a youth club … they had a little pledge going on between each other because they all wanted to go to custody … it was like a competition (YW18).

The effect of custodial sentences for these young people was that their ‘offending just escalated and escalated then’ (YW18). ASBOs were seen to have similarly negative effects, such as for one young woman:

Police were well aware of her and would pick her up and she would then retaliate, which would have a knock-on effect. With that [ASBO] ending and not having that restriction on her, it allowed her to develop and grow. (YW11)

Another thing seen to exacerbate young people’s offending was ‘inconsistency’ in youth justice responses, such as,

When the magistrates say ‘next time I see you I’ll send you to prison’ and then they don’t … [that] inconsistency. We are talking about people that are pretty poor at adhering to boundaries … so you just need to be quite sensible that you boundary people and then you hold them to it and there’s actions, there’s consequences. (YW02)

This worker explains how difficult it can be to respond to young people when their behaviours are really challenging:

Sometimes you just don’t want to ever see that kid again because they’ve given you such a horrible time. I remember one … climbed out of the sun roof of my car while I was driving

him to court, threatening to throw himself into the middle of the road. … Pulling kids off the roof of the car, they’re always arsey with you when you get back, you never want to see them again. That’s when it’s difficult to be principled and boundaried and clear and not shout and not get into that pattern of behaviour that they’re really used to, that it’s very, very human to get involved in. (YW02)

As this worker recognises and others agree, however, ‘shouting at them, threatening them, bullying them, waggling your finger at them is completely counterproductive’ (YW02). Such antagonistic responses can exacerbate young people’s offending behaviour.

The perceptions of young people within their community, or ‘the image that others have of them is a massive factor’ (YW18) that for many young people can aggravate or intensify their offending behaviour. This manifests in different ways. Firstly, the public mistrust of young people known in their area as trouble makers: ‘they were so significant and well known within the community’ (YW18); ‘they were getting shunned out there, so they had to stick together’ (YW18); ‘it’s expected of them then’ (YW18). But also among agencies and services who lose patience with young people not seen as conforming to behavioural standards. In one area, for instance,

There were agencies that wouldn’t take them because of their offending and you’re up against it. There was like a real bias coming up. I said how do you expect them to get on if you won’t give them a chance? (YW18)

Many service providers have ‘different criteria and some of our young people don’t quite fit’ (YW12). Many young people have ‘a lot of opportunities but they just haven’t got the skills’ (YW13); or ‘they could lose their accommodation and lose their employment because of their substance use’ (YW12). The perceived ‘failure’ of not engaging with school, training or other services may intensify a young person’s problematic behaviour, exacerbate their offending and further marginalise them within their community. 5.5 Things that help these young people reduce their offending

YOT workers agreed that each young person is different: ‘it very much depends on the person’ (YW10). Similarly, the things that helped reduce their offending differed between young people. Going into custody was seen as having varying effects, either as a space between offending and/or substance use: ‘going to prison … reduces it temporarily’ (YW02); or as a deterrent, such as for one young man who ‘spent a small time in custody and it certainly wasn’t for him’ (YW18). Some young people’s offending was reduced when their friends were locked up (YW05). For others, custody had the opposite effect (as noted above).

Boundaries emerged as a common theme about helping to reduce young people’s offending, in both the short and longer term. Boundaries included responding to immediate needs, and physical containment, as well as providing emotional security in the form of clear and consistent expectations and support. So, in the short term, this meant ‘keeping them safe’ and in a ‘stable’ situation:

it’s boundaries, keeping them safe initially because I think that’s what the services look to do first, is where are they living, what’s their situation. I think that once they’ve got stable accommodation, things do seem to calm down. (YW10)

Besides ‘appropriate accommodation’ (YW06) – ‘the biggest issue, having a stable place’ (YW03) – the most important element of boundaries was seen as stable adult relationships and ‘consistency’ (YW13), as this worker describes:

…experienced carers or support and lodging providers who understand where this behaviour stems from and are willing to give them chances. I think that is the biggest thing, and having a stable adult, whether that be the same caseworker or the same social worker, remaining consistent in their life. (YW03)

The notion of boundaries as ‘holding’ or ‘containing’ young people to reduce their opportunities for offending and to provide some stability in otherwise chaotic lives, if only in the short term, was seen as an important part of responding to these young people’s behaviour.

…this is all learnt behaviour and can be unlearnt and the way to do that is through nurturing and relationships, setting boundaries, holding people that are being really, really [out of control] (YW02)

In lieu of boundaries at home, many responded well to the YOT’s imposition of strict boundaries, even the daily contact of ISS, as one worker describes: ‘we’d tie them down so tight – but they wanted that’ (YW18). In the longer term this ‘physical containment’ (YW10), such as via the right care or training placement, was seen to have a stabilising effect that allowed young people to engage with support offered to them:

Some kids will go through phases so things will be going mentally and then they’ll suddenly calm down and then you can see why. It might be a particular placement. I think that’s the biggest thing, or a training placement. Training is usually a good way of calming someone down … the things that actually clamp down on them, and obviously the support from other specialist workers, but I’d say the physical containment. (YW10)

One worker saw this containment as a matter of ‘proactive risk management’ (YW16):

Sometimes when the kids are on a complete collision course with custody, or continued reoffending, in some ways you feel like you need to …. manage this in a pro-active risk management method of actually quickening up the custodial process … because it’s almost like they’re going to kill themselves, or they are going to hurt somebody else … it’s at the point where … only custody is going to potentially resolve this problem … having tried every other community alternative that there is. (YW16)

YW16 did not advocate ‘using custody where it’s not needed’, however, and saw it ‘as an absolute last resort’ (YW16). The three most important things he identified to reduce young people’s offending were:

…a significant adult role model involved in their life [such as] ISS staff, to try and lay off the drugs and alcohol, and to have something purposeful to do during the day. That’s not rocket science. … I am a great advocate of the [ISS model] (YW16)

The critical ingredient for any intervention to be effective, though, is ‘trusting relationships’ (YW13), as this worker explains:

No intervention goes anywhere unless you start to get people to engage in relationships and you build relationships and you build trust and relationships. Anything that you subsequently do is predicated upon this idea of relationship building. (YW02)

This requires ‘an adult or significant other that is there to support them and believe in them, and believe they can change’ (YW03). As well as ‘being flexible’ (YW11), belief is seen as the key to such relationships, because ‘I think without having someone who believes in them it is very difficult to change’ (YW03). The long-term impact of the ‘building of relationships and sticking with people and being honest and straight and … boundaries and all that pro-social modelling stuff’ (YW02) is implied in the response of the young man who this worker ‘bumps into’ now and again, who

…seems to be quite grateful whenever he sees me and says ‘thank you very much for doing the things you did back then’. I think ‘well I didn’t really do anything, you’ve done it all’. (YW02)

YM01 emphasises the importance of the skills and style of the case worker themselves in motivating young people toward change:

One of the biggest influences of motivating change within children and young persons is the case manager themselves … do they have really good interpersonal skills and they can understand where the kid’s coming from and adapt their approach to suit the way the kid wants it? However maintain the element of enforcement and staying within the boundaries of the order, doing what is required but flexibility enough and understanding enough to make it work for the kid? That takes a lot… (YM01)

This YOT manager emphasises that there is not necessarily a formula or script for ‘the perfect case manager’ (YM01) as it comes down to the interaction between two human beings:

You can’t print it out on your computer and say, tell me the make-up of the perfect case manager, because … the interaction between people is nuanced … [and] someone might work [well] with someone else and not with the next person. (YM01)

Maturity, or growing up, was another theme related to the curtailment of offending. Some young people simply experience a turning point, a moment of clarity, ‘an epiphany’ (YM01):

…that moment where they go, you know what? I’m sick of this, I’m sick of never knowing what day it is, living hand to mouth, people not that pleased to see me. I want it to change, I want some money in my pocket, I want some freedom, I want to move [away] from that nonsense. (YM01)

For some this may be associated with the experience of being treated as an adult, such as the young man who YW10 worked with, who ‘went over to probation and, I’m told, he’s doing really well. So I don’t know what changed that but I think it might just have been turning into adulthood’ (YW10). The data suggest two different ‘types’: for some young people – the ones who ‘just sort of grew up’ (YW17) – the process of maturing occurs naturally, over time; others might also reach the point of thinking ‘I am not going to do this anymore … [but] I don’t think they could have done it without our intervention’ (YW17).

For many young men – particularly those for whom ‘acceptance of their peers’ (YW11) drives their offending – ‘girlfriends’ are a positive influence, in that ‘getting in a relationship … seems to calm

it down’ (YW11), as does getting ‘a job and … a chance to do something’ (YW11). Some young people are motivated to reduce their problematic behaviours but struggle keep away from friends or situations that get them into trouble. For these young people, helping them avoid temptations that peers and/or substances represent can help curb the availability of their opportunities to offend. Motivating a young person is as much about stimulating and inspiring their reasons not to offend, as helping them to maintain their resolve in the face of challenges such as those facing this young man:

He’s doing really well at the moment but they’re inside, his friends are [in prison] … He’s got his own flat now, he’s looking for work, he’s really motivated. I know he can be like this but it’s when [his friends are] around. … He’s like ‘when the drugs are in front of me that’s it, there’s no way I can [resist], whereas if I just don’t see them, I’m better’. (YW10)

Trying to motivate young people takes ‘patience’ (YW18) and persistence:

They’re not motivated initially, but it’s working on that but them identifying incentives in their life, no matter how small it is … they come through the door and they see nothing, there’s something there. You grip on that and think there’s something to work with now. It could be something so insignificant but it’s not, there’s something there. (YW18)

Trust is critical, and the way to build that is to do with ‘the support that’s given and how it’s given’ (YW18):

They’ve got to trust you and … build their relationship with you. … The ISS coordinator before me, she said ‘they’ve got to do it’. I said ‘well they can’t, they can’t do it that way. We need to address this before we can work on that’, and they accept that. (YW18)

This highlights different workers’ approaches and suggests that a purely authoritative approach might be less effective than tailoring work to the needs and readiness of the young people. This requires understanding each young person’s individual circumstances and realities. Also important is giving ‘them ownership of the plan, working with them’ (YW11), ‘involving them in everything’, as YW18 explains:

say … I had to make a referral to social services, I don’t go ahead and do it, I’ll go up and visit them and say this is what I’ve got to do, this is why. They’ve got to be involved in it. … They’ve got to be a big part of their order – it’s their order. It’s just helping them to adhere to what’s expected of them. (YW18)

In the face of young people’s marginalisation and exclusion such as from agencies (as described above) YOT workers talked about the need for strong advocacy on their behalf. Negotiating access to opportunities for young people could lead to small achievements such as engaging with an education service, if only for a short time:

it is progress made, even if they’ve gone up and only stayed two weeks, for a kid that’s never gone through formal education, I think that’s a massive achievement … they’re showing they have the ability to do it, aren’t they? (YW18)

The smallest of successes may prevent a young person’s problematic behaviour from getting worse (if not actually reducing it), and may be seen as a step towards developing a more positive identity, both internally (for the young person) and externally (in the community).

5.6 Strengths-based work, recognising young people’s ‘successes’

The youth justice system is oriented towards seeing young people in terms of their offending behaviour and therefore their ‘failures’, ‘risks’ or deficits’, which was perceived as a problem by some workers, such as YW08:

If we are not careful there is a danger with these things that we reinforce the negative, we go on and on about the offence, and we are reinforcing this criminal persona.

Notwithstanding the overarching focus on risk, many of the workers interviewed were committed to assessing and managing their young people’s risk of reoffending, alongside trying to help them develop more positive pro-social identities and connections. This commitment meant they focused on young people’s strengths, ‘the positive factors’ (YW08), taking ‘small gradual steps’ (YW18), and seeing ‘success’ in terms of small achievements and subtle changes. Sometimes this meant focusing on the ‘gaps’, rather than just the offences, as YW08 observes:

With a lot of kids there will be big gaps in their offending sometimes, and I think we should look more perhaps at that as well, what they have done right, what's kept them away from this. (YW08)

YW08 suggests one way of doing this is by using ‘solution-focused therapy type thinking’ (YW08) to emphasise to a young person,

‘You could have committed more serious offences, but you haven't. You could be in a whole lot more trouble, so obviously something stopped you’ (YW08).

This suggests a different way of conceiving ‘success’. For instance, YW18 worked with a young man,

…in and out all his childhood, custody, custody but then we’d have a period of say four or five months, we held him and we continued with him and he didn’t go into custody. Now for me, that was success, we’ve kept this kid out of custody! For a kid that was constantly in and out … to me that was a success. (YW18)

‘Holding’ and ‘continuing with’ a young person in this way demonstrates the kind of persistence that workers tried to model for the young people they were working with. This often meant ‘keeping on’, even in the face of frustration and disappointment:

Loads of contracts get terminated, each one you push and they might go a bit longer. So it’s just not giving up on them I think. I think with this lot [the prolific group] and the ISS, they knew we weren’t giving up on them. (YW18)

This persistence involves taking ‘small steps’ and ‘accepting … who they are’ (YW18), as YW18 explains:

It does get quite frustrating … we’ve got him there and then the next day, it’s gone … but [accepting] well this is going to happen, this is who they are. So you just start again. It’s just constantly starting again with them then, especially with this cohort. (YW18)

A worker at another YOT echoes this experience with the ‘prolific’ cohort:

It’s quite frustrating for the people working with them in terms of things can go awry over a weekend, and they could be on a really good patch, feeling very positive, and then its peaks and troughs… (YW14)

The ‘quote of the day’ (Fig. 16, below) featured on the blackboard in one YOT’s foyer, where young people waited to see their workers and was intended to inspire the young people. It can also be seen as equally pertinent advice for workers: persisting in the face of their young people’s persistence. This means workers having to ‘stick with them, and run with it again’ (YW06), which demands workers’ belief in young people’s capacity for change:

It’s important as workers … to believe in them, to show them that someone believes that they have the capacity to change, and work with it at that time even if it only short-lived. Then when the time might come around again don’t think he is not going to change because it didn’t happen last time. (YW06)

This kind of strengths-based work also requires confidence, on the worker’s part, to go about Figure 16 Blackboard at a YOT, March 2015 building relationships and to value things that matter to young people, such as: feeling ‘listened to ’ so ‘they’re not made to feel silly … or stupid’; taking what they say seriously’; giving them the feeling they have ‘something to aim for’ and that ‘somebody understands them and believes in them’

(YM04). YM04 encourages her workers to:

Take a child for a game of pool … go for a walk on the beach, … put that down as ‘building a relationship’ because one of the most important things you will do with that young person is to gain their trust, regardless of what they tell you. (YM04) 5.7 YOT workers not knowing what to do

Sometimes, some young people seem intractable, their circumstances impossible to change:

We’ve got a lad at the moment who is really worrying, vulnerability wise and … we’re all like there’s nothing else we can do. Think of something, something else you can do with him. … I mean the tough thing for him [is] he’s got restraining orders against dad and ex-girlfriend. His mum has had a stroke, she’s in hospital. So anybody important to him, he can’t have access to or he can’t see. Drugs are huge, so complicated for him. We’ve got him in a secure placement but it’s just – Everybody is saying ‘oh yes, it is his choice’, but … he can’t help it. … He is 16. (YW10)

This example underlines a theme that emerged in some of the workers’ accounts: not knowing what to do with a young person when their situations were seen to be difficult to alter or ameliorate. When family situations meant that a young person’s support network was absent, unwilling or unable to engage, and where available options and services had been exhausted, workers felt impotent and ineffectual, unsure how to proceed. For the young man above, the reaction appeared to be one of blame: ‘it is his choice’. His vulnerability seemed to be downplayed

by the perception that he was ‘choosing’ to behave in a certain way. This highlights the way perceptions can shape how young people are responded to in a youth justice context.

Young people are perceived as more or less vulnerable based on subjective criteria, such as ‘naivety’, for instance:

I’m thinking of a particular lad … Over a period of years – it was a period of three or four years – we were just constantly having planning meetings. He was doing low level stuff but just managed to be … number one on the IOM. Then we didn’t know what to do. I think there was issues with mum setting boundaries. I don’t think she really ever cared about him, she just learnt to manage him really. I think there were some substance misuse issues with him. Just lack of boundaries, getting in with the wrong [crowd] – he was quite a naïve kid… (YW10)

He was perceived as particularly vulnerable because of his young age:

He came to us really early on. I think he went to secure at 12. Mum was in [the USA] at the time he got sent. Support were asking us where she was … He was 12. (YW10)

But also because he appeared vulnerable:

He was very angelic looking so the courts gave him chance after chance because they didn’t want to lock him up … I think particularly in the court setting … it makes a huge difference because if somebody is well behaved and they’re looking quite angelic and whatever, they do get away with more. (YW10)

The perception of vulnerability, or otherwise, can shape outcomes for young people, as YW10 reflects, ‘maybe it’s the system that makes them – because he got away with a hell of a lot.’ Perhaps, though, it was these ‘second chances’ that enabled this young person to ‘naturally’ grow up and out of his offending:

…he went over to probation and, I’m told, he’s doing really well. So I don’t know what changed that but I think it might just have been turning into adulthood… (YW10)

This example suggests that the way young people are perceived – by various criminal justice actors – has implications for how their experience and outcomes unfold. As well as workers’ perceptions, the way YOTs work with and respond to young people is also shaped, in part, by YOT managers’ views and understanding about young people’s offending behaviour. 5.8 YOT managers on how to respond to ‘prolific’ young people

The YOT managers interviewed demonstrated common themes in their views about young people’s prolific offending, as well as some differences. Family criminality and pro-criminal norms and values are seen as particularly difficult to combat. These young people ‘weren’t born with criminal tendencies, however they were brought up in an environment where criminal activity was actively promoted’ (YM01) through attitudes such as:

‘Oh fuck school, don’t listen to your teachers, that policeman he’s just as crooked as you’ – you know, those attitudes within homes are very prevalent with our groups (YM01)

This YOT manager describes the pervasive malaise associated with the ‘poverty of aspiration’32 that results from young people’s ‘unmet need [because] they’re not in school’ (YM01). To meet this need, a focus of YOT work is on ‘education, training and employment’ (YM01). Just as workers signalled the lack of a father figure in many of the young lives, YM01 also highlights the importance of an ‘appropriate male role model’ for many young people:

Many of our kids … don’t have dad, uncle, whoever, older brother sitting down with them saying, you need to think about what you want to do. … I go to work, you’ll go work. I’ve gone to college, you need to go to college. I’ve done a trade, you need to do a trade. You need to do something that’s going to buy you freedom at the weekend and at holidays and on an evening. It’s not about paying into the state, it’s about your freedom. Nobody’s having those discussions with our kids. (YM01)

The idea of ‘buying freedom’ evokes a transaction in which young people can themselves engage to bring about a desired outcome, one which YM01 enunciates in a way that springs them free of any (perceived) burden of conformity: ‘it’s not about paying into the state, it’s about your freedom’. This is at once a pragmatic urging towards the real-world responsibilities of approaching adulthood and a constructive message of hope and possibility, yet framed in terms of adolescent rebellion. It aims to stimulate a sense of aspiration towards freedom: ‘freedom to make decisions and choices, get on a bus and go somewhere’ (YM01). It assumes and seeks to motivate young people’s desire for ‘freedom’. It also assumes young people’s capacity to choose to act in certain ways.

For another YOT manager, choice is a neglected factor in some young people’s offending, for example:

I think what’s not recognised is choice. It doesn’t mean to say that you stop trying. It doesn’t mean to say that you keep on managing them. It doesn’t mean to say that, but it is choice. They have all the information they need, they know it’s wrong, they understand the consequences to themselves and others but they choose to do it anyway. (YM07)

From this perspective, YOT work is seen as recognising and ‘managing’ the consequences of the choices the young person is unwilling or unable to ‘manage’ themselves:

I think as a YOS officer, sometimes you have to recognise they’re making bad choices, we’ve done everything we can to educate, inform, divert, we’ve offered opportunities. We’ve raised what are their aspirations. We’ve asked ‘what does a positive outcome look like for you?” We’ve asked “what would you change if you could change one thing about yourself or your life or your situation?” You do all of that and more. You support, you go out, you engage, you build up relationships and then they still go and do it. (YM07)

32 YM01 refers to Shadow Chancellor Michael Portillo’s 2001 observation of UK “estates where people live without hope of anything better in life, a poverty of aspiration as much as of money” (see http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/michael-portillo-we-must-learn-from-our- european-partners-9135072.html). For a contrasting view of “poverty of opportunity” see: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/poverty-aspiration-%E2%80%93-phrase-should-have-gone- out-victorian-frock-coats; also research evidence that ‘poverty of aspiration’ is ‘largely a myth’ http://www.kcl.ac.uk/newsevents/news/newsrecords/2013/09-September/Poverty-of-aspiration-largely-a-myth.aspx.

The implication is that all options available to the YOT – to try and engage and influence the young person’s behaviour – have been exhausted. In the end, it comes down to ‘bad choices’:

I always say, as an adult … you go out, you get drunk, you wake up on a Sunday or a Saturday morning, you vow never to do it again, you’ve learnt all your lessons, you’re hungover and yet next Friday. How soon we forget … Now you’re an adult, a functioning adult with paid employment and you still, you make bad choices. Now that harms yourself, it can harm your relationship, it can impact on your kids because Saturday morning you can’t move or Sunday morning you can’t get out of bed. So you know the consequences of it but you still choose to do it, for whatever reason, because you enjoy it, because you feel social, because your friends ask you to, because you want to. … The same with young people, but we’re not very good at recognising that. So I think choice. You can inform, educate … but there is an element of choice. (YM07)

Whether this perspective takes full account of the factors contributing to and constraining the choices young people make, in the context of their social relationships, is not clear. It does reflect, nevertheless, a particular view of young people’s behaviour that assumes their capacity to make ‘good choices’, amid social circumstances where perhaps those options are not available to them. There is an apparent contradiction between acknowledging, on one hand, ‘we’re not very good at recognising that’ (YM07) young people are emulating adult behaviours and suggesting, on the other, that such behaviours are the young person’s choice and, by implication, their responsibility. A further assumption is the universality of law-abiding, health-giving and ‘pro-social’ norms. For children and young people who do not recognise these in their own experience they may carry little resonance and certainly have less lure or persuasive power than the opinions, approval, company and encouragement of their peers.

Another YOT manager expressed a view that seems more attuned to young people, in that she saw their ‘boundary pushing … and adventuring’ (YW02) as a natural part of development:

Isn’t it in children that if you tell somebody not to do it, nine times out of ten they’re going to flipping do it, isn’t it? (YM04)

This perspective gave her a pragmatic understanding of the paradox of engagement: that some young people ‘would engage, but they’re not prepared to stop’ (YM04). Though this comment relates to substance misuse, it applies equally to offending. The implications for how to respond to young people’s ‘prolific’ behaviours are less about blaming young people for their choices and more about being realistic and trying to understand their situations:

So they’re using XYZ and they don’t want to stop, what’s motivating their use? … if we can’t answer questions that we’re asking we don’t know enough about the young person and we don’t enough about their lives and what’s affected them. (YM04)

As a YOT manager, she wants workers to develop a deep understanding of ‘what’s going on’ in the young people’s lives and to be able to identify ‘what’s the positive in this young person’s life?’ (YM04). This means that:

Instead of … just saying to the young person, ‘you have to stop doing this’, let’s have a look when these key points [triggers] are … We’re not saying ‘you’re not going to use substances out there’, but we’re going to do something different at that point. (YM04)

It also means working ‘with the families, not just the individual’ (YM04). This way of responding to the ‘prolific’ group represents a departure from a deficit view of what’s missing in young people’s lives, to working instead with what is present and possible at that moment. This strengths-based approach aligned with the practice of many of the YOT workers interviewed. ‘Some people get it’ (YM04); for others, however, who have ‘been doing things for a while the same way [they]’ve always done them, then change has to be managed carefully’ (YM04). 5.9 Changes in responding to/working with the ‘prolific’ group

Youth justice practice has changed significantly since the establishment of YOTs in 1998, as one senior practitioner explains:

We had a very different way of working in 1998. We didn’t really have an assessment framework … [Did you have to write out plans and goals?] … no, absolutely nothing to do with that at all. For me, it was all about engagement … the day would be spent out on the road, quite often looking for the young people we were meant to be working with. Office based work was generally around finding placements, accommodation, liaising with other organisations, but most of it was chasing them around really. They’d never turn up for appointments. We didn’t have a suitable building for them to attend appointments in so appointments had to be out and about. We had a lot of time with people so, for me, it was all about engagement and relationships. (YW02)

This worker contrasts the idea of a ‘programme’ as a treatment to be applied for a particular problem, whereas more generic work aimed at changing offending behaviour ‘was all about developing relationships, just not giving up on people’ (YW02). This ‘not giving up’ translated as outreach-focused work:

They’re not there for an appointment, right, I’m going to find them. Just doing stuff we don’t do anymore, going around the estates knocking people’s doors, going to stranger’s houses. We have to risk-assess everything now, you just don’t go around to people’s houses and knock on the doors. … Nobody does. (YW02)

There is, however, ‘lots of inter-agency work [which] is far better than it was’ (YM04). As well as these changes in YOT practice, the reduction in the number of young people entering the youth justice system and in custody – perceived as due to YOT diversion and prevention efforts – has meant that ‘you’re able to see the cohort you need to be working with’’(YM01).

There was consensus among the YOT managers interviewed that, though there are ‘fewer prolifics’ (YM07) in the youth justice system, the young people who remain in the system are, ‘oh boy, entrenched, embedded’ (YM07). In addition, young people with complex needs are found at every level of the system, not just ‘at the top end [that is]young people in care … [substance] misuse issues, family breakdown issues, parents in prison issues’ (YM07). These changes in the cohort are largely due to legislative and policy changes that are seen to have had significant effects on responses to young people’s offending. Greater flexibility in sentencing in relation to referral orders, for instance, and the expansion of diversionary measures:

Years ago … they seemed to escalate very quickly to receiving a custodial sentence, whereas now there is much more emphasis on trying to keep them out of court and working with them by the youth bureau. (YW17)

This has meant that children with multiple ‘low end offences’, who would in the past have had those offences recorded and been deemed ‘prolific’ in their offending, are now eligible for pre- court diversion, meaning ‘the offences are still there but they are being done and dealt with’ differently (YW11). In addition, young people are receiving ‘more support … at the bottom’ (YW11):

whereas before we were doing final warning assessment, two interventions, signpost on, we are now working with those for a maximum of three months but putting intense support within those three months, which can address some of those behaviours and nip it in the bud there. (YW11)

This change was perceived to have occurred due to the introduction of the ‘scaled approach’, which helped YOTs

…direct the level and intensity of contacts and work that we should be doing with them. [This] was a really useful tool … to help us decide on dosage and contact. (YM01)

In addition, increased awareness of the prolific group ‘changed the way in which we worked with that higher need group … and we were able to focus more on them, we were able to give them more attention’ (YM01). This has meant more targeted work, delivering interventions according to the assessment of young people’s ‘criminogenic needs’ – the specific areas seen as relating directly to their offending and risk of reoffending – ostensibly33 underpinned by a view of young people as ‘children first, offenders second’. 5.10 YOT managers on the Children First, Offenders Second philosophy

For the YOT managers interviewed the ‘children first’ principle is and has been very much embedded in practice for a long time, in that ‘everything we do here is to promote them as children and young people’ (YM07). One manager explains that, rather than change practice,

It has … given me a strategy I can use that enforces and promotes that … where it’s helped is with partners, to change their thinking, perhaps, and the wider public even (YM07).

The most important aspect of this message has been: ostensibly

…promoting the lack of maturity, promoting speech language education need, promoting learning styles … people always say [children] know right from wrong, don’t they? They do sometimes know right from wrong, they don’t always understand consequences. They don’t always understand outcomes from that. So yes, they know that it’s wrong to put your hand in a fire, but sometimes they have to do it anyway … to learn. (YM07)

One local area where the ‘children first’ principle was seen to have least traction or influence was in ‘anti-social behaviour world, in community safety’ (YM07) where

33 Thomas (2015) suggests that Welsh YOT practice – supposed to be uniquely ‘children first’ in orientation – may be no more or less ‘children first’ oriented than that of some English YOTs. That is, some Welsh YOTs were found to be more risk-oriented and ‘justice-focused’ than others, while some English YOTs treated young people as children first, offenders second. See also Haines, K. and Case, S. (2012) ‘Is the Scaled Approach a Failed Approach? Youth Justice 12(3):212-228.

They’re not seen so much as children first … it’s still very punitive work. They do try to support but it’s far more focused on well they’ve had an acceptable behaviour contract, they’ve worked with the YOS for one month, they’re still doing this. They need time, these are children. We’ve had ASBO applications on 10, 11 year olds. There’s something wrong in the world when you’re doing that. (YM07)

Although the language has changed34, the way anti-social behaviour is responded to ‘is still a punitive process’ (YM07). YM07 sees this as problematic, in that it meets public expectations for ‘something to be done’ about ‘anti-social behaviour’, yet at the expense of children’s rights and the principle of custody as a last resort:

We have custodial rates due to breach of ASBOs. This is not a good process for children and young people. … That behaviour doesn’t have to be proved. … You could phone up, complain about a young person and it goes on the incident list. The young person gets a chance to say “I don’t agree with that” but it’s not the same level of evidence for a criminal matter. (YM07)

From YM04’s perspective, ‘if it’s important to change the lives of children then you’ve got to keep on banging. So my job is to keep on banging away … [to] get on people’s nerves’ about, for example, the implications of the criminalisation of young people for anti-social behaviour. As YM07 explains:

If you’ve got one ASBO, you can guarantee that person’s going to breach it. We’ve had a young girl go [to custody], only last week, for further offences but numerous breaches of [her] anti-social behaviour order. (YM07)

This suggests that these aspirations – to ‘change the lives of children’ (YM04) and to ‘change [partners’ and the public’s] thinking’ (YM07) to see young people as ‘children first’ – are yet to be fully realised. 5.11 Supporting young people’s transitions

YOTs see an important part of their work as supporting young people’s transitions: from childhood to adulthood; from offending to non-offending; from being ‘looked after’ to independence; from youth justice to adult probation. Supporting and supervising young people with very difficult circumstances and complex needs can be a matter of ‘sticking with’ them (YW02, YW06) getting them through their teenage years. Sometimes this transitional period includes time spent in care and or custody, whereby this can become part of the child’s normal experience.

I’ve seen them saying, ‘[worker’s name], I want to go to prison to sort my head out’. I said ‘you don’t need to go to prison to sort your head out, let’s sort it out here’. So to them, prison was their only way of getting away from it. (YW18)

Similarly, for some young people, the experience of going into care could become normalised, as one senior practitioner observed. Having lived and trained in part of England where social workers frequently ‘met a lot of hostility, violence and aggression’ (YW02), he recalled being struck by very different attitudes among families he encountered in Wales:

34 Since the 2014 introduction of IPNAs and CBOs to replace ASBOs (see footnote 11).

I was quite welcomed into people’s houses … ‘Have you come to take the kids away? They need a break from the house, it’s great for them to go into care’ … I was quite surprised to find a recognised transition from home to independence around here seemed to be a spell in one of the children’s homes (YW02)

There is no other evidence to suggest that this ‘rite of passage’ (YW02) is a peculiarly Welsh phenomenon; it may be a characteristic of communities marked by particular socio-economic disadvantage. Nonetheless, 49% of the young people in the sample35 had been ‘looked after’ under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, which provides for a child to be accommodated by voluntary agreement with parents.

As well as the transition from being ‘looked after’ to independence, the transition from the YOT to probation is seen as a ‘massive change’ for young people, to be managed skilfully:

It’s a transition period, isn’t it, for a young person to leave the YOT and go to probation, [there’s a] massive change in the way that probation works compared to YOTs. (YM07)

The most important things to take into consideration are the young person’s ‘maturity levels, cognitive levels’ (YM07). In addition, the YOT provides much individualised and intensive support, on which young people can become reliant (see ‘Huw’ at 6.2.3 for an example of this):

We go everywhere, we take young people everywhere. We go to their houses, we pick them up. It’s a massive difference. (YM07)

She describes the process of supporting young people in their transition from the YOT to probation, involving ‘faces they know … [and] making appointments to help breach in the first month … helping them understand what a probation office is’ (YM07). She emphasises the time required for this transition, implying that it is a vulnerable period for young people, who need to be ‘slowly introduced to adult mental health, to adult substance misuse, to adult leisure opportunities’ (YM07):

So if we can take two or three of our workers and what they do over with [probation], it’s not alien … it is friendly faces and people you can phone and still speak to if you’re confused. It’s not ‘ta-ra, you went today, bye’. (YM07)

To sum up some of the key YOT worker/manager themes, the following example (in Box 5.1) illustrates the complex issues underlying some young people’s prolific offending, how circumstances can work against them and how ‘somebody believing in’ (YM04) and advocating for them can help them navigate vulnerable periods of transition and thus significantly alter their life outcomes. YM04 (I’ll call her ‘Ann’) tells the story of a young man she worked with – we’ll call him ‘Joe’.

(Note, all the italicised words in the following indicate the voice of ‘Ann’ [YM04]. The parts in bold highlight important factors in ‘Joe’s’ story that signify his moving away from offending – relationships and trust – as well as the key risk factor potentially stymying his efforts to do so: the fact that ‘he was so well-known’ by police.)

35 Of the 96 out of 103 for whom this information was recorded. 14% had been subject to a care order (under S.31), 31% had been remanded to local authority accommodation (under S.23), 45% had been placed on the child protection register, and 87% had referrals or other contact with social services.

Box 5.1 ‘Joe’ – a ‘prolific car thief’

‘Joe’ came from ‘a family with a very poor education and attainment background’; his parents had learning disabilities, and ‘his dad had huge amphetamines issues’. Once, when Joe was placed in a secure training centre outside London, ‘Ann’ recalls taking ‘his mum and his gran’ to visit – ‘They’d never been further than Cardiff. Oh, getting them across London on the tube, it was hilarious.’ A ‘prolific car thief’, Joe’s ‘excitement was going out stealing cars’. However, he had been ‘making great strides’ – Ann felt she had been ‘actually getting somewhere with him’, partly because ‘he’d met somebody and she was pregnant … and he was really excited about this’. ‘Then he was in a back lane one day, and he was still on the community part of a custody order, and … a friend said, ‘Can you just reverse this car up here for me’ … So he just got in the car and reversed it up the lane, and there was a police officer walking round the lane, and he was so well-known... When they arrested him, I was off on two weeks’ annual leave, I came back to find out he’d just been given a custodial sentence. So I said to his solicitor, we need to appeal this. And he said to me, ‘Don’t be so ridiculous, you can’t appeal this, he’s got … [this prolific record]’. And I said, ‘I’m telling you, please will you appeal it, I know he will trust me for you to appeal it, and I will write the report’… So I went to the Crown Court, and the barrister said … ‘I’ll have to put you in the witness stand’. I said, ‘that’s fine’. So I went in the witness stand, the judge addressed me and I just gave my spiel about in my opinion this wasn’t progressive, he’d been making [such good progress] and the judge … said to me, ‘So you believe if you had been here at the sentencing exercise then there would have been a different outcome?’ I said, ‘Yes I do your honour’. Anyway, he released him, he put him on a suspended sentence. The funniest thing was … he said, for the next 12 months you are not allowed to sit in the front of a car, driver’s seat or passenger seat. So I took him for a custody [hearing] … sitting in the back seat of my car! And he’s not reoffended. He’s got two children now and they’re both together. I bump into him occasionally, and I’ve bumped into his mum as well, and she said ‘he tried really hard and he said it’s about he didn’t want to let you down, and he really believed in you and you put your...’ – I put my professional reputation, I suppose, my judgment call [on the line for him] ... So that was lovely.’

‘Joe’ thus became one of the small minority who, despite the odds, ended up ‘doing well’. The intervention of the YOT clearly had an important part to play in this outcome. Most noteworthy, however, is that this was not a formal ‘programme’ or formulaic intervention. It was a demonstration of mutual trust, belief and respect: the keys to an effective relationship.

6. Findings: the young people

This chapter draws on the analysis of YOT case files, PNC reoffending data, case studies, and interviews with four young men. Of the 103 young people (from the original sample of 117), 82 case files were accessed and analysed at eight Welsh YOTs. 84% of these cases were male (69 boys) and 16% were female (13 girls). To conceal the identity of the young people and the YOTs working with them, all 103 young people have each been given an anonymising code: B1-B87 (B for boys) and G1-G16 (G for girls). Nine of these young people’s histories were subject to in-depth case study. The case studies feature eight boys and one girl. For these case studies and the young people interviewed, Welsh pseudonyms are used, to bring their stories to life.

The chapter is in five parts. It begins with a look at reoffending among the young people since 2009-10. Case studies are then used to illustrate some key themes emerging throughout the data. These themes are explored further from the perspective of the young men interviewed, who highlight important aspects of their own experience that have implications for working with young people more broadly. Across the sample the young people’s stories and backgrounds, and the circumstances within which their offending behaviour arose, spoke of high levels of disadvantage and difficulties going on in their lives. Following a brief summary of the themes emerging from these stories, a typology is presented in which broad drivers for ‘prolific’ offending are identified – being ‘anti-authority’, ‘out of control’, and ‘every now and then’. Within these different ‘types’ include: the ‘rebel’, the ‘entrepreneur’, the ‘pest’, the ‘resigned’, the seeker’, ‘looked after’ and ‘in crisis or transition’36. First, though, to examine reoffending across the sample.

25 3

24 7

23 40

22 32

Agein years 21 15

20 5

19 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

No of YP

Figure 17 Current age of the original sample (in mid-2015)

Figure 17 above shows the current ages of the young people who were aged 14 to 18 years in 2009. In 2015 the majority of the sample was aged 21 to 23 years, with an average of 22 years and four months, which is useful context for the reoffending information that follows. Note,

36 This typology is not intended to provide hard labels under which to place young people, it merely provides a system which recognises that within the prolific offending group there were different types of behaviour which underlay the prolific offending and this typology provides a short-hand way of referencing these differences.

however, this is a rough guide only given that it portrays years and not months. Also, current age data were gathered over a four-month period, so ages may not be exact. 6.1 Reoffending among the sample

Of the 103 young people followed up from the original sample of 117, reoffending data on over two thirds of the original sample were gathered. The data collected varied in detail and completeness. Binary rates of reoffending (whether an individual had reoffended or not since leaving the YOT) were available for 71 young people: 97% of these had reoffended since leaving the YOT. This blunt binary measure tells us little, however; it gives us no insight into changes in reoffending patterns or gaps between re-offences, for instance, which can be indicators of subtle but significant changes in young people’s circumstances, thinking and behaviour. Ideally reoffending data needs to be analysed in the context of young people’s lives to reveal the complexities and nuances of change, and the impact of interpersonal interventions and relationships, such as we saw in the story of ‘Joe’ (see Box 5.1).

As the YOT workers and managers suggested, young people’s ‘prolific’ offending has different dimensions and it is important to understand all of these and how they relate to each other. Volume is one such dimension: the number of offences for which a young person is charged and convicted (which may or may not accord with the total number of offences committed). Persistence (the number of years over which a young person’s offending takes place) and frequency (the rate of offending within a particular time frame), as well as the seriousness of the offending (both high and low-level) are also important dimensions. Together these constitute a range of different patterns, drivers and trajectories that the term ‘prolific offending’ covers and conflates. These dimensions are explored throughout this chapter.

In Box 6.2 (below) we zoom in on a proportion of the sample in terms of the volume of their recorded reoffending. This more detailed picture reflects 45% of the sample, since this data − the number of offences resulting in conviction since they left the YOT (around the age of 18 years) − were only gathered for 46 of the 103 young people: 7 girls and 39 boys. Comparatively speaking, the girls’ offending diminished more quickly than the boys (three out of seven committed none or one further offence and two more committed up to ten; only one remained prolific in her offending). Issues of masculine identity and manhood (discussed at 6.4) offer some explanation of why a larger proportion of boys’ offending persisted over longer periods.

Data on persistence ‒ the time between first and last recorded offence ‒ were collected for 69 young people: 13 girls (all those whose case files were accessed) and 56 boys (as some of the young men’s re-offences were not dated). This is shown in Figure 19 (females) and Figure 20 (males). These data comprise the age of first police reprimand or caution, the age of first conviction, and the age of the last conviction. Striking are the varying degrees of persistence – the length of time over which each young person’s offending was recorded ‒ from the age of 10 years up to their age in 2015. The case studies and interview data, further on in this section, give examples of different patterns of frequency and range of seriousness of young people’s offending.

Box 6.2 Volume of reoffending among 45% (n=46) of the young people, since leaving YOT

For the 46 young people (7 girls, 39 boys) for whom these data were available, Figure 18 (below) shows the volume of known reconvictions across the sample, in terms of the number of reconvictions of the young people after they had left the YOT (around the age of 18 years). This only captures, proven reoffending, meaning offending that resulted in a conviction. This ranged from one male and one female having no further convictions, to 12 young men and 1 young woman receiving convictions for over 30 further offences each. The five other young women had between 1 and 10 reconvictions each. Three of the young men, to date, had each been convicted of 50+ offences since leaving the YOT.

Figure 18 Number of convictions for known re-offences among 45% (n=46) of the young people

Average 53.33 3.330-7 reoffences Average Average 11.22 35 3.33 9-15 reoffences 23.3319-28 reoffences 3531-41 reoffences 53.33 Average Average 50+ reoffences 23.33 11.22

One third (five girls and ten boys) had been convicted of fewer than eight offences since leaving the YOT. Nine young people had been convicted of between nine and 15 offences; another nine between 19 and 28; and a further ten between 31 and 41. A tiny proportion, all young men, had, since leaving the YOT, been convicted of over fifty offences each, most recently burglaries. Since acquisitive offending was often drug-related these young men (now aged 20-21 years) may have been driven by substance dependency (though this information was not recorded).

To sum up this information, over half (52%) were convicted of an average of 6.29 re-offences each in the years following the YOT which, going by the average current age of 22 years 4 months, might be around a four-year period. This would mean a reoffending frequency rate of 1.57 per year which is significantly lower than the frequency rate of 3.66 in 2009-10. This suggests notable reductions or at least downward trends in offending for more than half the group.37 The 48% convicted of 19+ re-offences in that period (a total of 720 offences, with an average of 33 offences each) show a frequency rate of 8.18 per year highlighting a slightly smaller group marked by a pattern of persistent, high-volume and high-frequency offending.

Although this snapshot accounts for only a proportion of the sample, it nevertheless paints a picture of diversity among the young people in terms of the volume of their reoffending. Similar variation emerges when we consider persistence among a larger proportion of the sample (66% of the 103) below.

37 One possibility is that some young people were committing more serious offences and receiving longer sentences. For example, where information was available across the sample, 11 young men had received custodial terms of 16 months or more since leaving the YOT. Eight of these were longer than two years, all for offences involving violence against the person. However, none of these individuals featured in the data represented above, suggesting other explanations for the downward trajectories.

6.1.1 Offending years ‒ from first police contact to last recorded offence

The charts below reflect a slightly different data set of 69 young people: 13 girls (all those whose case files were accessed) and 56 boys (as some of the young men’s reconvictions were not dated). Figure 19 shows the 13 girls for whom the age of first police reprimand or caution, first conviction and last conviction were available. It shows the period of time over which females’ offending has been recorded to date, from the age of their first youth justice contact, to their age at their last recorded offence (for which they were convicted) to date. From left to right it depicts the longest period (13 years) to the shortest (2 years). The average age of first reprimand or caution was 13.2 years, first conviction was 13.8 years, and last conviction was 20.8 years. The girls’ average period of offending was 7.5 years.

Figure 19 Lengths of young people’s offending record, by age of first YJ contact, for females

Age at first reprimand / caution Age at first conviction Age at last offence

24 23 22 Mean 21 = 20.8 20 19 18 17 16 15 Mean 14 = 13.8 13 Mean 12 = 13.2 11 10 9 CM G5 14 WRX G16 8 MT G7 1 CAR G3 1 NEW G12 10 MT G8 2 CBG G2 11 NEW G11 8 MT G10 5 GM G14 3 CAR G4 2 CBG G1 2 MT G9 4

Eight of the 13 girls (62%) had their first contact with police before the age of 14. For 62% their first contact also resulted in a conviction. Ten out of 13 (77%) had offended over a period of time of between five and ten years. One had been offending over a 13-year period, from the age of 10 years and up to her current age of 23 years. Two girls had shorter offending periods of two years (between ages 16 and 18 years) and four years (14 to 18 years).

Figure 20 below shows the period over which 56 males’ offending was recorded to date, from age of first offence to their last conviction in 2015. The average age of the boys’ first reprimand/caution (12.1 years) and first conviction (12.9 years) was younger than the girls. The average age of their last offence was similar at 20.8 years for the females and 21 years for the males. This comparison is skewed by the size of the reoffending data sample (13 female, 56 male), which makes percentages among the female group less meaningful.

Figure 20 Length of young people’s offending record, by age of first YJ contact, for males

Age at first reprimand / caution Age at first conviction Age at last offence 25 24 23 22 Mean = 21.0 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 Mean = 12.9 13

12 Mean 11 = 12.1 10 9

B13 B13 B56 B16 B60 B20 B3 B5 B10 B18 B86 B23 B24 B43 B6 B22 B73 B62 B15 B39 B42 B41 B79 B11 B25 B26 B12 B2 B58 B17 B54 B8 B75 B84 B45 B7 B19 B4 B40 B83 B14 B55 B46 B1 B77 B57 B70 B72 B44 B80 B47 B27 B48 B21 B81 B49 B82 Among the young men, 45 out of 56 (80%) had their first police contact before they were 14 years old, and for half the group, their first youth justice contact also resulted in conviction (indicating a more serious offence). In terms of the period of time over which they had been offending: six of the boys had been offending for between three and six years (10.7%); 28 out of 56 (50%) had offended over a 7 to 9-year period; and 22 (39.3%) had offending periods of over ten years. The longest was 13 years, the shortest was 3 years. The boys’ average period of offending, then, was just under 9 years. Given that 90% of the boys and 62% of the girls had offended over a period of seven years or more, it is evident that persistence is associated with prolific offending in this group.

6.1.2 Sustaining gaps in offending

These data, when combined with information about young people who were not included in the above (G15, B9, B50 and B51) suggest that, notwithstanding the persistence across the sample, a significant proportion of the young people seem to have experienced lulls in their offending that appear to have been sustained. The table below depicts 20 young people.

Out of the 69 for whom reoffending data were available, 15 young men and 5 young women have not been convicted of further offences for at least two years (four have not since 2009-10; 11 have not since 2011-12; five since have not since 2013). This indicates at least a two-year gap in their reoffending38. (Young people whose last offence resulted in a lengthy sentence, who were still in custody in 2015, are not included here.) The table below shows some of the characteristics of these young people’s offending, in order of their age at first offence, to explore factors associated

38 This may mean, of course, that they have become better at not getting caught; however, this explanation seems to hold little relevance for people whose offences are largely reactive, such as those driven by substance dependency and/or typically in response to crises or difficulties in their lives.

with these outcomes. Note the offending is mainly acquisitive, property, public order and compliance-related, with two summary assaults and one child neglect. Apart from two house burglaries, these are not considered serious offences.

Table 8 Young people whose last conviction was prior to (or up to) mid-2013 YP Gender Period of Age at first Age at last Last offence Date last offending offence* conviction offence

B13 M 10yrs 10 20 Theft Feb’13 B60 M 9yrs 10 19 (not Jun ’12 recorded) B3 M 7yrs 10 17 Theft Mar ’12 B73 M 9yrs 11 20 Criminal Jun ’13 damage B6 ‘Aron’ M 6yrs 11 17 Burglary Sep ’12 (dwelling) B42 M 6yrs 11 17 Fail to Jan ’10 comply B45 ‘Ioan’ M 9yrs 12 21 Shoplifting Jun ’13 B51 M 8yrs 12 20 (not Mar ’12 recorded) B50 M 5yrs 12 17 Public Order Sep ’10 B1 M 8yrs 13 21 Assault May ’13 G8 F 6yrs 13 19 Assault May ’13 B9 ‘Bryn’ M 5yrs 14 19 Burglary Aug ’12 B55 M 5yrs 13 18 (not Nov ’11 recorded) B47 ‘Lewys’ M 7yrs 14 21 Public order Dec ’12 G14 F 4yrs 14 18 Public order May ’09 B21 M 6yrs 15 21 Fail to Feb ’12 comply G15ᶧ F 5yrs 15 20 Child neglect Mar ‘12 G1 ‘Alis’ F 5yrs 15 20 Breach ASBO Jan ’12 B81 M 5yrs 15 20 Burglary Aug ’12 (dwelling) G9 F 2yrs 16 18 Property Aug ’10 offence *Age at first offence = first reprimand or final warning (or first conviction if no other data recorded) ᶧ G15 features here but not in Figure 19 because no data for ‘first reprimand or final warning’ was recorded.

What is striking is the variation between these cases, in terms of the length of offending history and the age of first police reprimand or final warning. The one pattern that emerges is the correlation between the age of first recorded criminal justice contact and the length of the offending period: the young people with the longest history of nine years had a record of offending from the age of 10 to 12 years, others’ recorded offending started at 11 or 12 years yet seemed to cease after five or six years; the shortest history (two years) is associated with the latest onset of criminal justice involvement (at 16). While the latter supports the link between late onset offending and a shorter criminal career (e.g. Moffitt 1993), the former belies this link. In fact over half (12) of this sample who moved away from crime began their offending history prior to their 14th birthday, which ought to indicate their persistence into adulthood, yet which suggests this theory does not correspond to these young people’s experience. The case studies that follow provide insight into some of the processes associated with young people’s transitions to pro-social lives (or their persistence in offending).

(Photo taken by Diana Johns, 2015) 6.2 Case studies

The following young people were selected for deeper case analysis based on particular aspects of their circumstances, their ‘prolific’ offending, and/or their transitions to a pro-social life. Names of people and places have been changed to protect privacy. The young people have been given Welsh names in keeping with the context of the study and to bring their stories to life. The nine case studies draw on electronic Asset records and physical case files analysed at YOTs as well as interviews with workers. These studies are idiosyncratic in that data were gathered at different YOTs and reflect different methods and styles of recording information. The type of data collected also varied as the research process unfolded over time. Hence the stories presented here are not necessarily comparable in any statistical sense, but serve to illustrate different aspects of the social, cultural, family and individual characteristics, circumstances and experiences of the young people in the ‘prolific’ group.

The dysfunction, deprivation and disadvantage characterising these young people’s lives was the strongest theme across the sample. Most remarkable about these case studies is that, from their initial profile, certainly the young men (if not Alis) seemed to fit the ‘likely to be persistent’ category from a developmental ‘risk factor’ perspective. Confounding such possible expectations, it is encouraging to be able to share so many different stories of ‘success’. The headings feature a quote taken from the young person’s case file.

6.2.1 ‘Alis’, ‘Aron and ‘Bryn’ – a ‘pro-criminal’ family (Bryn, Asset)

‘Alis’, ‘Aron’ and ‘Bryn’ belong to the same family. Aron, the eldest of the three, is two months older than Alis and 18 months older than Bryn. Alis and Aron are ‘brother and sister’, in that they have both always lived with their grandparents whom they refer to as ‘Mam’ and ‘Dad’. Only two months apart in age, their actual parents (Alis’s mother and Aron’s father) are among six siblings in a large family, many of whom are ‘heavily involved in the criminal justice system’, ‘in a range of offending’, and who are ‘perversely protective of its members’. The family all live close by each other in a neighbourhood characterised as rural and deprived, where public transport is limited, and drug dealing and other ‘anti-social’ activity occurs quite openly. ‘The family are well known within their home area and have been the subject of several issues with neighbours’ (Asset, Bryn).

Their cousin, ‘Bryn’, previously in care, lives next door to the grandparents with his mother, who has four other children. All the children in the family are on the child protection register, some are under care orders. Excessive use of alcohol and other substances is seen as normal in the family.

Figure 21 Alis, Aron and Bryn’s family relationships

As shown in Figure 21 above, another aunt (their ‘sister’, two years younger than Alis and Aron) lives with ‘Mam and Dad’ (the grandparents), an uncle lives nearby, another uncle is in a secure hospital, and another uncle (Aron’s father) has supervised access to his son. Alis’s father is in prison for violent offences, and having been ‘associated with’ a 16-year-old girl when he was 48, allegedly abused Alis’s best friend over several years. There is conflict between Alis’s mother and grandmother that Alis finds difficult to cope with, exacerbated by not knowing why her mother did not bring her up.

‘Alis’

Alis did not start offending until she was 15. From the age of 15 to 18 she was charged with a total of 97 offences, predominantly public order and low level property offences. According to her Asset records, at the height of her offending Alis was prone to binge drinking, although she did breach her ASBO when both drunk and sober. Case notes describe her chaotic behaviour and volatile relationship with police. This was attributed to ‘cognitive deficits’ relating to ‘problem-solving and impulsivity’, as well as poor temper control, peer influence and substance misuse. The main issue in relation to her offending appeared to be that she did not view ‘her drinking and being rowdy as a problem’ (Asset notes). As well as alcohol, she regularly misused other substances with her peers, including anti-depressants, amphetamines, ecstasy and paracetamol.

In her final Asset, when Alis was 18 and 4 months, it is noted that

[She] does not offend for personal gain [and that] all her offending [is] linked to her social circumstances and the neighbourhood culture. (Asset record)

This assessment seems to belie the earlier account of the individual deficits in her thinking and behaviour. Getting to know her seems to have given the worker insight into the socio-cultural drivers that were deeply embedded in her family relationships and endorsed by her peers.

Case notes describe her as presenting as a very confident individual, initially brash and outspoken, but who was far more approachable the more familiar she became with people. While she had issues with police and resisted police authority, she was pleasant and polite with YOT workers. Also observed is:

…a huge element of bravado [in her behaviour] … [she] likes to present as the ‘bad girl’ and enjoys the kudos that this brings [among her peers]. (Asset record)

At the age of 17 she went into custody in an adult setting for the first time, after which her offending sharply decreased. The time she spent in custody was in a women’s prison in England, where she became thin, depressed and withdrawn and was placed on suicide watch. Alis had previously spent time in a secure children’s home where she self-harmed and was subsequently hospitalised.

Vowing she would never return to custody, she appealed against a subsequent 12 month DTO by writing a letter to the judge explaining the reasons why she gets into trouble, citing the area where she lives and her problems with the police and other residents. Her custodial sentence was reduced to a three-year Criminal Behaviour Order. Her last recorded offence was a breach of this Order in 2012 after which no further offences have been recorded. She is now 24.

Just prior to her 18th birthday, some notes in her archived case files gave insight into Alis’s character and the fraught circumstances she had faced throughout her young life. Confirming Alis’s own view of her neighbourhood as the source of her trouble, an email from one YOT worker to another, advising of Alis’s arrest, said: ‘as long as she’s in [the town] she doesn’t stand a chance’ (Case file document) Another professional noted that her ‘very complex and unpredictable family setup … affects [Alis] significantly’ (Adolescent Fostering Team Risk Management Plan, dated in 2009). And yet another assessment describes her thus:

[Alis] has issues of low self-esteem, anger and dealing with past abuse. She is however, polite and cooperative while on supervision and respectful to professionals. She is bright, intelligent and capable of achieving successful outcomes if supported and lives away from her present home. (Adolescent Fostering Team Referral and Initial Information Record)

Asset records dated around that time (aged 17 and 9 months) note her very high motivation to change her behaviour because of her recent experience in custody at the women’s prison. Notwithstanding her grandparents were supportive to an extent, her family support was limited, yet ‘she is aware that she needs support to stay out of trouble’ (Asset). Her final Asset noted:

Offending all linked to [the town]. Her ASBO conditions severely restrict her movements as she is banned from every street in the village except her own. This makes it very difficult for [Alis] to not breach her order. She is only allowed access to her home via the rear access road and is unable to catch the bus as it only stops in a street where she is banned … She has no friends outside of [the town]. (Asset record)

At the end of her final order with the YOT, Alis was considering moving out of town to avoid reoffending. Her PNC record to date suggests she might have done so. The support from the YOT conceivably played a part, particularly if the encouraging, positive tone of this ‘ISSP - Notification of final warning’ is indicative:

I am really enjoying working with you [Alis]. You have loads of potential and it would be a pity to spoil your good progress by slipping up with further breaches. (Case file)

‘Aron’ Aron started offending at a younger age, receiving a final warning at the age of 11 for offences including criminal damage and ‘taking and driving away’. At 12 he received a referral order for theft. At the age of 13 he was placed on an ASBO with an Individual Support Order attached to it, requiring a YOT worker to support his compliance. His further offending consisted largely of low- level public order and theft-related offences, as well as breaches of the ASBO. Most of his friends were other local children who also ‘get into trouble’ (Asset).

According to his grandparents (whom he called his parents), Aron was a ‘worrier’, and ‘often depressed’ (Asset notes). His Asset notes include reference to his low self-esteem, depressed mood, and that his carers described him as ‘engaging’ but ‘too trusting’. Aron had been diagnosed and prescribed medication (including Ritalin) for ADHD and asthma.

His first Asset, at the age of 11, noted that Aron was not engaged in education at that point. He had been at school, attending an ‘educational and behavioural difficulties’ (EBD) class every day, but had been excluded twice, for a few days each time. He was seen by an educational psychologist who said that he could attend comprehensive school, with educational support. Aron lasted two days at the ‘comp’, however, as no such support had been put in place for him. Since then he had been under ‘home tuition’, with plans to attend another EBD class.

At 17, Asset notes under ‘perception of self and others’ include:

Feelings of hopelessness and feels that despite wanting to he can’t change his situation.

A polite, motivated young man … aware of the issues in his life that required address. (Asset records)

Also noted were his limited self-esteem and confidence (possibly due to anxiety about an impending court appearance), and that his maturity was below his chronological age. ‘An emotional young man’ (Asset), he was at that time seeing a doctor about his emotional and mental health difficulties.

This Asset described Aron as ‘vulnerable’ in his peer relationships, and that getting into trouble with his peers was mainly due to his misuse of alcohol which was ‘a coping mechanism’. It was noted that he was aware that:

He is susceptible to the negative influence of other young people, and his desire to fit in. (Asset record)

Although he did not to wish to offend, he ‘has trouble with resisting peer pressure’ (Asset notes). In addition, he had previously admitted to things he had not done just to get out of police custody as he found it frightening. This suggested he was ‘basically a compliant young person … [who] has difficulty with peer pressure’ (Asset). As well as the problem of peers and that he liked to drink, which was a ‘major factor’ in his offending, Aron’s new-born son was a key incentive for him to stay out of trouble. His worker also identified that ‘a full time job would greatly reduce his risk of offending’ (Asset). His worker concluded at that time:

Although his motivation [is] high and his identification of issues prevalent, his aptitude to apply lessons taught is somewhat limited, and his risk of recidivism is thus adversely affected. (Asset record)

It is interesting to note that, though this may not reflect the intentions of his YOT worker, the way this comment is phrased in terms of the ‘risk of recidivism’ – as required by the nature of the assessment tool – seems to downplay the significant strengths that Aron’s motivation and understanding of his ‘issues’ imply for his moving away from offending. The use of ‘although’ serves to reduce the importance of this first idea and emphasise the second as the more important. The sentence structure thus highlights his ‘problem’: his ‘limited aptitude to apply lessons taught’. The implication is that once taught, a lesson is thereafter the young person’s responsibility to ‘apply’, rather than there being a continuing obligation for the teacher (in this case the YOT worker) to check the child’s understanding and create opportunities within their ability to apply it their own experience. This phrasing implies that the likelihood of further offending which is seen to arise from this deficit is therefore the child’s problem, not the adult worker’s.

In his final Asset five months later (age 18), his worker wrote that Aron was living with his partner in rented accommodation with their five-month-old son, and that his partner was receiving benefits. His ties with his grandparents and aunts remained close and supportive, and while Aron’s relationship with his partner was described as ‘rocky’, she spent time with both her parents and his grandparents despite child protection concerns about going to their house with the baby. Aron was not working, nor on benefits, nor trying to find work, and he ‘doesn’t appear to be able to do anything about it’ (Asset notes). His lifestyle at that time was rated as very highly associated with his risk of reoffending, for these reasons:

 He was unemployed, and had no hobbies or sports  His peer group was similar to that he had moved away from previously, in that they were known to police  He regularly breached his curfew when he and his partner argued because he would leave the house to calm down; he did not view this breach of curfew as ‘offending’.

These issues are listed as problems rather than seeing them in the context of his family and community culture, which was acknowledged as highly criminogenic and difficult for a young person to navigate successfully.

Other ‘risk factors’ included his alcohol use, but Aron did not feel he needed any help with substance misuse counselling. He had also been using tranquilisers, and concerns were noted over possible risks of combining his ADHD medication with ecstasy and alcohol. Again his worker concluded that despite the positives – that he had always worked well with agencies, and that he could identify reasons to stay out of trouble (mainly his baby boy) – he remained risky:

He cannot sustain any changes to his lifestyle … he has identified a similar peer group … [and that] due to his emotional difficulties and immaturity his vulnerability is high. (Asset record)

These assessment snippets make Aron sound like a failure, when in fact the positive elements of his story might otherwise be read as an emerging success that needed time, opportunity and consistent support to manifest. It is interesting to note that his sister Alis’s story tended to emphasise her struggle as one of having to break away from her problematic family and community setting, in that: all her offending [is] linked to her social circumstances and the neighbourhood culture. Whereas Aron’s problems seemed very similar, the narrative around his experience seemed to hinge on his risk of reoffending and emphasise his personal failings. The

dominant motif in Alis’s story was vulnerability; though Aron appeared to be equally vulnerable in many respects, his was more a chronicle of risk.

‘Bryn’ Their cousin Bryn, whose mother lives next door to Alis and Aron, has been ‘looked after’ following a care order when he was ten, due to neglect. He initially lived with a foster carer who still looked after his brother. He has lived in residential care since he was nearly 14, around the same time he began offending and regularly absconding with another resident young person. At 16 he moved back home with his mother. He had his first formal contact with the youth justice system at age 14 and 5 months. At that time, according to his Asset, he had a pro-criminal group of friends and regularly went ‘missing’ when he stayed with friends and family in his neighbourhood. It was noted that he had no hobbies or interests. Under ‘perception of self and others’ the following was recorded:

[He] sees himself as a criminal and doesn’t think this causes him any problems. … [He] feels that everyone behaves this way. … in general [he] can’t see what’s wrong with his behaviour and doesn’t recognise some of his actions as being criminal. (Asset record)

In residential care (‘resi’), a YOT worker noted:

Staff at the home are supportive of him but only he can make the necessary changes. (Asset record)

A ‘positive’ observed was his resilience, demonstrated by the fact that he coped well with difficulties and knew where to seek help.

At the age of 15, Bryn’s offending was seen as related to his misuse of alcohol and cannabis. Several separate Assets were written during at that time. Nevertheless the evidence remained essentially the same:

Custody has no fear or deterrent effect … [Bryn] is his own person who tends to do what he wants to … [He has] a flippant attitude [towards offending because his] family is heavily involved in the criminal justice system [and] therefore it is the norm and second nature [to him]. (Asset record)

Further detailed evidence that appeared in a number of Assets included this:

Several of [Bryn’s] cousins are pro-criminal and are involved in a range of offending. They are involved in the CJS, the YOS and also custody. [Bryn] is subject to a care order … for reasons of neglect … Absconded regularly … to see his family with whom he is allowed only supervised contact. (His parents applied to have care order revoked – Court did not revoke). Girlfriend is 14 years of age and is 7 months pregnant. She has a social worker. (Asset record)

One PSR noted:

…a lot of alcohol misuse and drug taking by family members in [Bryn’s] immediate and extended family … [Bryn] remains in contact with his family but this usually has negative connotations as when he visits he drinks…

At 16 and a quarter, Bryn had ‘settled down’ and was not so disruptive at the home. His girlfriend had had the baby, and he went to see them as often as possible. He had reduced his use of alcohol and cannabis.

At 16 and a half, his mother had evidently moved out of the town, and an Asset recorded that he was,

Happy living at home with his mother … [is] getting on well with her. Mum’s partner also has a good relationship with [Bryn]. The only issue is when he spends time in [the town] at his Nan’s as the house appears a bit chaotic and [is] frequented by known offenders. … His Nan has a strong influence on him. She can be a controlling factor with him when required but uses this in her own agenda. (Asset record)

When he had just turned 17, Bryn was drinking every day as a way of ‘coping … to deal with the difficulties [relating to contact with] his son’. Assets around this time note:

The length of his antecedents and the lack of any real progress in reducing the level of his offending evidences that this young person is not very serious about stopping offending or that he gives priority to this. … [He is] too tired to attend his programme and does not want to do it. … He knows [that unless he engages with his programme] he will end up in prison, but this doesn’t really seem to bother him. (Asset record)

It was noted that he would like to keep training and to see his son, but also that:

He badly needs incentives to become an effective parent, and incentive to become a more pro-social member of his community. (Asset record)

Six months later (age 17y 7m), his Asset noted

Evidence … that the regime within the home does not take offending too seriously, or to regard his behaviour as unacceptable or out of step with the dynamics of the family … The family is characterised by dysfunctional relationships and behaviour. (Asset record)

Three months later, however, two months shy of his 18th birthday, Bryn

…has had a complete turnaround in his thinking. Having unsupervised contact with his son is at stake and [social services and the YOT] are in regular contact to ensure that these positive steps are being maintained. (Asset record)

It is noted that he has a ‘good working relationship’ with his supervising YOT worker, and that:

He abides by rules and boundaries and … is benefitting as a result. (Asset record)

This worker concludes with a positive summary of Bryn’s progress, including that he is ‘currently trying to address issues and utilise support being offered to him’, he has reduced his alcohol intake and has had no further offences:

[He is] progressing with [his] aim of seeing his son. He knows he is one step away from a custodial sentence and really does not want this to happen. He is now in a position where he has a good relationship with a supportive girlfriend and is experiencing life outside [the town]. In short, he now has something to lose if he goes to custody whereas he did not feel he

did previously. His motivation is high and he has maintained this over a few months. … [Bryn] is doing everything that is asked of him and more importantly wants to do it and will actively ask for advice outside his timetabled appointments. (Asset record)

His final Asset, at the age of 18, had a very low dynamic score of four, which signified the progress he had made. Since leaving care he was living with his grandparents, where he could remain indefinitely. He was trying to gain access to his son, now aged 2, and had maintained his resolve to do so. He had dissociated from his peer group, and his offending and his substance misuse had decreased dramatically. He was attending college where he had made new friends who were not known to the YOT. Though he appeared in Crown Court two years later on a charge of house burglary, for which he was sentenced to 10 months in YOI, he has had no further convictions to date.

The offending trajectories of the three cousins in represented in Figure 22, below, which shows that while their contact commenced at different ages, the reoffending39 of all three tapered off around the same age.

Figure 22 Offending by Alis, Aron and Bryn

No. of offences 60

0 Age 13 Age 14 Age 15 Age 16 Age 17 Age 18 Age 19 Age 20 Age 21 Age 22 Age 23 Age 24

Alis Aron Bryn

Alis, Aron and Bryn grew up amid intense deprivation, dysfunction and disadvantage, which was compounded by wider family involvement in crime and entanglement with the justice system. It is striking that all three of them managed to move away from offending, despite all these so-called ‘risk factors’ indicating their likelihood of persistent offending into adulthood.

39 When collecting Bryn’s offending data, the numbers of his offences each year were not recorded; instead a total of 38 offences were recorded over the four -year period from age 14 to 18. These have been averaged in the diagram below which therefore shows a more gradual increase and decrease than may have actually occurred.

6.2.2 ‘Caio’ – ‘a monster on paper’40

At the YOT where ‘Caio’ was supervised during his teenage years, a worker commented that, through the risk-focused assessment process, young people’s stories are often recorded in terms of the problems and deficits in their lives which can tend to ‘create monsters on paper’41. These ‘monsters’ may represent a young person’s worst behaviour but have little resonance with other, more positive aspects of their lives, and therefore with them as a whole person. On paper, Caio was one such ‘monster’. The following story was put together from his Asset records, reoffending data, and later from an interview with a YOT worker who supervised him.

As shown in Figure 23 below, Caio’s contact with the youth justice system began at the age of 10 when he received a police reprimand for burglary (of a ‘non-dwelling’). At 11 he received a final warning for arson, then a referral order for house burglary. Over the next three years his offending increased, with charges for 24 offences (mainly criminal damage, theft and public order). From the age of 15 his record indicates he became suddenly more violent, with charges for threats to murder, possession of weapons and grievous bodily harm (GBH). He received three DTOs within a two-year period. Several DTO breaches meant his return to custody on further occasions. Other charges for racially aggravated harassment and public order offences followed, for which he received fines (e.g. £30-£50 plus £100 court costs).

Figure 23 Caio’s offending, initial referral order and escalating statutory disposals 14

6 No. of offences

DTO DTO

DTO Sentenced years to6+3 Sentenced

2 ISSP

Supervision Order Supervision Referr al Order 0 Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

An angry, violent young man One way of interpreting the information depicted in Figure 23 might be to see that Caio’s imprisonment contained and reduced his increasingly harmful behaviour (via incapacitation). A sixteen-year-old imprisoned more than three times conjures a ‘risky’, dangerous young man. Certainly he was ‘a very angry boy’, who ‘can display a very aggressive attitude’, according to an Asset (dated 2009, aged 16 years 8 months). This Asset described how:

40 See note below. 41 This quote came not from interview data but through informal conversation with workers at YOT7.

If he does not get his way, he will put people under mental and physical duress to achieve his goals. (Asset record)

In particular, he was noted to be extremely aggressive towards his mother and sister. It was seen as a concern that he was ‘distancing [himself] from his mother’ (Asset), after he refused visits from her while in a care placement. At other times he abused and assaulted her; once he threw lit candles at her. His ‘indifferent attitude towards other people’s feelings and emotions’ (Asset) was corroborated by a psychological report at the time that highlighted his lack of empathy (Case file).

His first Asset completed at the age of 11 described how his

…behaviour can be very erratic and unpredictable … [he] can be extremely threatening and abusive, both physically and verbally’. … [His mother] describes it as if he ‘snaps’ and can’t control himself. … He is extremely aggressive towards his mother calling her very disturbing names … she usually gives in to him as she can’t deal with the humiliation. (Asset record)

The anger he expressed towards his mother indicates an intense desire to wound her. This was partly explained by the rejection he felt following the loss of his father (at 6 or 7):

[Caio] blames his mother for sending him to [residential school] after his father died. (Asset record)

And by his mother’s violent ex-partner (a ‘known MAPPA42 offender’) being ‘back on the scene’ (Asset). His refusal of his mother’s visits when in care (under a section 20 voluntary placement) was another example of his resentment towards her.

His anger also turned inwards. A striking detail noted in his Asset records are the self-inflicted marks to his face, apparently linked to his obsession with ‘gangsters’. He was particularly influenced by the character played by Al Pacino in the 1983 film ‘Scarface’. In his last Asset it was noted that many previous assessments had described him as:

A young man who is transfixed with media representation of gangsters and offending lifestyles … [He] has scarring to his face … [and has] denied … self-harm although Mum says he has been doing this to himself in front of the mirror in response to watching the gangster movie, ‘Scarface’ … also [Caio] has persuaded other people to inflict wounds upon … his face. (Asset record)

His last Asset (the 58th), written after he had just turned 18, described his violence as more premeditated than reckless, and that his negative view of women meant a high risk of domestic violence in any future relationships. He ‘demonstrated very controlling behaviour … [and] he appears to think of how he can incite fear and aggression in others.’ His ‘e’ underpinned his high risk of violence, and custody was no deterrent to him. It is noted that he ‘perceives himself as a criminal’, an ‘identity strongly entrenched with his peer group, neighbourhood and lifestyle’, and that he ‘enjoys the notoriety that his offending brings’. This worker also noted ‘signs of institutionalisation’ in his post-release ‘problems adjusting to life in the community’ and his refusal

42 Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) are a set of statutory arrangements to assess and manage the risk posed by certain sexual and violent offenders (s.325-327 Criminal Justice Act 2003).

of ‘all support and assistance’ (all these quotes from his Asset record). The image conveyed so far is of Caio as a bully and a thug; a ‘monster’.

A vulnerable young person Yet speaking to his workers – and reading his history differently – paints a different picture. The following builds upon Asset data with information gathered in an interview with one of the YOT workers (YW19) who had supervised Caio from around the age of 12 or 13. Rather than an angry and violent young man, a picture of a vulnerable young person – developmentally impaired by his experience of trauma and bereavement, and anxious and angry about his family relationships – begins to emerge. The interview with YW19 tells a story of Caio’s intense vulnerability and a system ill-equipped to meet his needs: ‘a particularly sad case’ (YW19).

This story began much earlier. His former worker described concerns:

…from a very early age … as far back as nursery school … his mum said he was he was excluded from nursery school … because of his aggressive behaviour. (YW19, interview)

This reflected the home environment: Assets document that Caio witnessed domestic violence perpetrated by his alcoholic father and by his mother’s other partners. His mother, a heavy drinker with mental health issues, had attempted suicide several times and been hospitalised because she could not cope with her son’s behaviour. An ‘ineffectual’ parent, she was ‘consistently unable to provide effective boundaries’ for Caio (Asset). Their relationship was described as ‘very turbulent’. His sister, a heroin addict, gave him money when he needed it but little other support. His grandmother ‘was a support … she did used to feed him … But again, he’d go there to get money when he wanted money’ (YW19). When Caio was 10 or 11, the death of his grandfather (with whom he was very close) had a devastating impact on him. His later substance misuse (mainly cannabis and Valium) suggested a tendency to ‘self-medicate’. When he was 11, a social worker noted that ‘he functions intellectually on a level of an eight [or] nine-year-old boy’. A YOT worker similarly noted that ‘his emotional development has been affected greatly by his upbringing’ (Asset, age 16y 8m).

His worker (YW19) stated that the aggression towards women, noted in Caio’s file, was never an issue with the female workers at the YOT. She felt his behaviour was more a manifestation of Caio’s anxiety about his mother and his fear of what she would do when he wasn’t there. This would explain behaviour such as when ‘he would lock her in the house and climb out the window’ (YW19). While this could be construed as an assault on his mother, or even false imprisonment, it can also be seen as the desperate act of someone afraid of being abandoned. In another similar incident, at home with his mother when he was 14, Caio threatened to slit his throat with a knife.

Reflecting on the ‘gangster’ image Caio cultivated – the walk, the talk, covering his face with a bandana – YW19, describing his physical demeanour as ‘small’ and ‘boxy’, recalls:

He certainly had more than a swagger. I think he tried to make up for maybe his own emotional inadequacies because of his physical size by having this persona. You had to try and get through that. Now I didn’t find that intimidating at all, maybe others might have. … I could see through it … that was the veneer that he protected himself with (YW19).

His emotional inadequacies were seen to stem from his mother’s ‘inability to cope’ and inability ‘to provide him with all of his needs’ (YW19):

Mum wasn’t really a mum, she was an immature adult … [she] used to show her affection by buying him material goods. He just used to trade in those goods then. When he’d sold his goods mum would end up getting him more. (YW19)

Caio’s anger with his mother seemed to arise out of a lack of respect:

He used to get so annoyed and lose his temper with her, I think because she presented as maybe just a fairly pathetic character, unfortunately, someone who people should feel sorry for, who was inadequate, who wouldn’t cope. I think he just used to find it so irritating. (YW19)

Another problem was that ‘mum didn’t engage brilliantly’ (YW19):

I remember going down there trying to do a home visit, nobody was in or they were in and they weren’t answering. It was very hard to get mum to answer phone calls … so he wasn’t encouraged to engage either. … He’d shut down basically, this boy (YW19).

One key element of Caio’s experience was the way the criminal justice at that time responded to his behaviour, with ‘very little flexibility’ (YW19):

You didn’t have the generic YRO because it hadn’t been introduced. What you had was this very swift escalation up a sentencing ladder, and you couldn’t come down. …If someone wasn’t attending for their appointments, well they’d be going into breach. … If someone breached on an action plan order, for example, which I remember he did, then they were given another chance, possibly. But once they breached again, they were onto a supervision order … then you were onto the next supervision order with ISS. (YW19)

The result of this ‘very rigid’ approach was that ‘he was just escalating because basically he wouldn’t engage’. YW19 attributes the inability of the ‘system’ to meet Caio’s needs to a combination of circumstances and factors:

When you think of his difficulties and maybe the culture of the YOT, the sentencing framework, the lack of understanding about the need to be more flexible with young people that probably did not help give the best intervention. (YW19)

YW19 describes the ‘culture of the YOT’ as one in which staff were ‘not willing to commit themselves to judgement on vulnerability and risk’; she believed this may have been due to staff confidence and training, as well as to YOTs being ‘still quite new’. By way of example she notes that YOT staff ‘were writing, they were ticking boxes … it was very much one type of work’ (YW19). YW19 reflects, ‘if I’d have had the case today, there would have been a completely different way of trying to address his issues’:

He was seen to be a very risky young person … the focus on risk may have overshadowed his vulnerabilities at that time. … Now, within the [YOT], we’ve got much better ways of assessing vulnerability … and the understanding that someone can be vulnerable and risky at the same time. (YW19)

In addition to this way of thinking about young people, practices have improved:

Now we’re looking at things like enhanced case management43, we’re doing joint supervision with … certain complex cases. We’re looking at much more open approaches I think to try and engage … we’re using a lot more different styles of approach. I think the resources are much better now, for working with young people. (YW19)

Missed opportunities But for Caio and his family, in YW19’s view, ‘those things weren’t in place really for them’:

What this family needed was a massive amount of therapeutic help. I think that would have been the first priority really … I think there was probably missed opportunities before he even arrived within the YOT. (YW19)

Those ‘missed opportunities’ included the family’s involvement with social services, and the education and mental health systems. YW19 relates several examples of inappropriate, problematic and inadequate forms of intervention, such as the finding of a detailed psychological assessment that:

the social worker, who had been involved with the family for a long, long, long time … had colluded with mum and so the child was seen as the problem … the child was seen to be the problem, rather than maybe the mum’s parenting. (YW19)

YW19 recalls ‘feeling that this just isn’t cutting it’ when, at a LAC review at which Caio was present,

The CAMHS worker turned up an hour early for the review and had to leave ten minutes into it … she had to go because she’d mistimed the appointment. (YW19)

If YW19 perceived a lack of interest or commitment, Caio would conceivably have felt equally disillusioned by the so-called ‘care’ system. Caio seemed to fall through the cracks in the education system too:

He was on the school roll [but] he wasn’t actually going back to that school. I don’t think that was made explicit to anyone. I certainly remember the mother saying to me on the telephone that she’d even bought the school uniform for the forthcoming September…. He never actually ended up going back to the school. (YW19)

He was placed in a full-time residential care home ‘with a school within it’ (YW19), where:

It was easier to engage when he was [there] … because he had more stability … we were able to have more open conversations. I was able to use humour with him to get a response and he’d laugh and he’d come back with something. (YW19)

YW19 also had ‘an agreement [with this home] that we would work together’, which ‘was very positive’. By the time Caio received this help he needed, however, ‘it just seemed that it was just a little bit too late’ (YW19).

In YW19’s view, ‘things could’ve been done earlier’:

43 The Welsh Government and Youth Justice Board (WG/YJB 2014: 17), since April 2013, have been developing a new ‘enhanced case management’ approach for YOTs in Wales that espouses the importance of relational work with young people to bring about positive change.

I think the problem was with mum … he needed therapeutic intervention and I think he probably would have needed probably fostering very early on. … [I wonder] was it because the problem was seen to be him and not the parenting? (YW19)

YW19 felt she needed to establish trust over time:

I really felt that I had to establish some sort of relationship with them, try and talk to them. I don’t think we ever really got there, to be honest, in terms of me finding out about what was important, really, really important. (YW19)

Yet she also acknowledged that,

His needs were so great that they couldn’t be catered for within the criminal justice arena, it just wasn’t really going to cover what needed to be done. It really did need a truly multiagency approach. I think probably there could have been more done that way really. (YW19)

YW19’s understanding of Caio’s vulnerabilities did not negate the fact that his behaviour was increasingly ‘risky’:

In his group, I would say he’d probably have been the one to try and do something to show that he would go the whole way to prove that yes, ‘I will take risks and I will do, maybe what you’re thinking, I will do it’. (YW19)

She describes a violent incident where he was with some other young people and pulled a knife on someone he didn’t know:

He had no reason. There was no reason. … I just felt that he was really advancing he was going to push it. So that was a worry. (YW19)

Part of this behaviour was a manifestation of ‘his alter ego’ (YW19), his obsession with the gangster aesthetic, which was:

…all a bit make-believe and aspirational. But the worry was what he was aspiring to … He was certainly presenting this image of himself, projecting it in a certain way. … Probably he got more entrenched in a way, because that was an identity that he could inhabit … That would have been his strategy to keep himself safe. (YW19)

Another way of interpreting Caio’s offending ‘story’, then, is that social services intervention at 15 was too late: ‘he was saying no, I’m not doing that, I’m not doing it’; it was too late to start ‘trying to put provisions in place, accommodation provisions and LAC provisions later on … he was going to push it to the max’ (YW19). His increasing aggression embodied this resistance. His subsequent custodial sentences may have intensified his sense of alienation, legitimised his violence as a way of resolving conflict, and exacerbated his emotional difficulties. At 16, his YOT worker wrote that his ‘motivation to change’ was ‘difficult to assess at present’ (Asset):

In placement, progress was noted, and [Caio] … said that he does not want to reoffend, and will comply with any community programme. However, has also stated that he sees himself in prison in a year’s time. (YW19)

This observation contains two competing forces in Caio’s life: a desperate yearning for identity and desire for his life to be different; yet also a sense of fatalism about where he had come from and who he would become. It would seem his sense of self-worth had been shaped and limited by his family background and relationships, as these various notes under ‘Perception of self and others’ suggest: ‘lacks confidence and self-esteem’; ‘poor social skills’; and ‘a very angry boy’. As YW19 describes, ‘he was completely angst-ridden’; his childhood was dominated by ‘insecurities, attachment issues.’ Although ‘he was resilient’, YW19 felt ‘that there was a set of circumstances almost conspiring together really to inhibit his change’:

I just think he was carrying injuries that only could be helped to heal by the resources that were not available, for whatever reason, at that time. (YW19)

His last Asset (at 18y 1m) described his:

…feelings of isolation and despair at having no address and deterioration in relationships.

Unable and unwilling to return to his mother’s house – where he was both at risk of harm, and at risk of causing harm to his mother and her violent (ex-)partner (with whom she was in a continuing relationship) – Caio felt lost. It is perhaps unsurprising that he said he ‘would like to return to prison’ (Asset 18y 1m) where he had demonstrated some successes: his attendance at education was good and he ‘achieved numerous certificates’ (in custody and while in care); for his good behaviour he ‘achieved gold regime’ which is the highest level. He had also applied for a college place as he was ‘keen to embark on a career in catering’ (Asset, 18y 1m). Now 23 and serving a long sentence for a violent assault, he may be pursuing this goal behind bars.

6.2.3 ‘Huw’ – ‘dependency’ on the YOT (Asset note)

‘Huw’ had the most prolific offending record in the sample: between the ages of 11 and 18, according to YOT records, he committed 156 offences. He also had the highest number of assessments (110 Assets44). It is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, that running through his file is a theme captured in this observation: he ‘views [the] YOT as an integral part of his life, to the point of dependency and expectation’. He exemplifies the reliance on the YOT, which workers and the young people interviewed alluded to in relation to the transition to probation, and which makes the transition to the adult justice system difficult.

Between the ages of 15 and 18 Huw spent 3 months in secure residential care and roughly 18 months in YOI – 9 times for an average of two months each – having received 4 DTOs and several ISSPs (breach of which resulted in custody). By the age of 17, he had breached 33 previous disposals by failing to comply or by reoffending. He went on to commit fewer but increasingly serious offences (robbery, battery) after leaving the YOT, as shown in Figure 24 (below). Drawing on his Asset records and case file notes, and on anecdotal accounts of YOT staff who worked with him, the following is an attempt to sketch out his story.

Huw’s first formal contact with the justice system was at the age of 11 when he was arrested, with four other boys, for shoplifting. He received a police reprimand. Six further offences soon after – theft, criminal and common assault – led to a final warning then a referral order, which he breached by reoffending. His first Asset, however, indicated a low risk of reoffending with a

44 This may have included some duplicate records but it is not clear how many.

‘dynamic score’ of only 4 (out of a possible 48). Rating the likelihood of further offending on a five-point scale, low scores of ‘1’ were recorded in the following domains: family and personal relationships, substance use, perception of self and others, and thinking and behaviour. The following evidence accompanied these scores:

 [Huw’s] parents try to enforce boundaries but [he] constantly tries to remove them. When he was grounded for the offence he constantly tried to leave the house.  [Huw] uses cannabis and alcohol regularly.  [Huw shows] no concern for the shops he stole from.  [Huw felt a] certain amount of peer pressure by an older boy who [he] states was bullying [him] into stealing. (Asset dated 2003, age 11)

At the time, Huw lived at home with his parents, the youngest of four children. He had two older sisters and a brother who was also in contact with the YOT for substance-related offending. Nevertheless, his likelihood of further offending was assessed as extremely low. In an assessment made six months later (at the end of a referral order) the dynamic score had risen to 19, with the highest ratings (4) in two domains: ‘family and personal relationships’ and ‘thinking and behaviour’.

Case notes suggest that Huw’s mother, ‘Mrs. H’, found it difficult to cope with Huw’s aggressive, ‘hyperactive’ behaviour. She thought he may have ADHD as it ‘runs in her side of the family’; her sister’s child was also involved in offending. Mrs H revealed a history of domestic violence, both physical and emotional, and her concerns about the level of her partner’s ‘physical chastisement’ of (hitting) Huw. Reporting a history of abuse, depression, and debts hidden from her partner, Mrs H was drinking ‘a flagon of cider’ a night (Asset). Fearing repercussions for herself and her son, she did not want the YOT to contact Huw’s father. The case worker noted the family’s social isolation, lack of supervision of the children, and that domestic violence was impacting on their emotional/behavioural development and identity. This impact was also noted under ‘thinking and behaviour’, with concerns about ‘inappropriate role model reinforcing anti-social behaviours’, evidenced by incidents of Huw ‘urinating in [the] school yard’ and threatening a female pupil at school to get money (Asset). Other areas of mild concern (with ratings of 2) were ETE, lifestyle, attitudes to offending and motivation to change. Notably, substance use was rated ‘0’.

Figure 24 below depicts Huw’s offending and custodial record, drawing on YOT and PNC data. It shows a total of 171 offences committed between the ages of 11 and 22.

The trajectory of Huw’s offending in relation to time spent in custody certainly appears to evidence that he was at least physically contained by the justice responses to his offending. He exemplifies the ‘out of control’ (see 6.5.2) type of young person whose offending may be seen as largely attributable to his response to ongoing and pervasive disadvantage and the chaotic and disruptive conditions of his young life. Certainly the evidence contained in his case file suggests that his educational (and possibly health) needs were not being met by the available services and interventions. The spikes following his release from custody (from YOI at age 18 and prison at 21), however, suggest that his desire to change his offending behaviour did not manifest in full cessation. It is difficult to discern this desire, though, when his time spent in the community has been so limited.

Figure 24 Number of offences and custodial outcomes, ‘Huw’, age 11-22 Sentenced to 32 months 35 Sentenced to 12 in YOI for Robbery months + 3 months imprisonment 30 (driving offences)

25 Sentenced to 5 months imprisonment (Battery) 20 Mainly motoring, theft and burglary offences, age 11-18

15 No. of offences 10 Mths in custody

DTO DTO

YOI

YOI YOI

YOI PRISON 0 PRISON Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Case notes suggest that his desire did not match his capacity to avoid getting into trouble. At 17 (according to Asset notes dated April 2009), for instance:

He states clearly … that he wants an offence-free future, wants to work, etc., however, he is unable to put these thoughts into practice once out in the community. (Asset)

Furthermore, the YOT had apparently exhausted is resources, given that despite his

reasonably good record of cooperation with the YOT … this has come to the point where all involved, including [Huw], believe he sees the YOT as his extended family, [and] therefore boundaries have very little meaning to him. (Asset)

This is further evidenced by the observation that he is manipulative with staff, in that he

…‘dictates’ his needs rather than accepting a working relationship which involves give and take … [this is evidence of] his ‘dependency’ on the YOT. (Asset)

As part of his last Asset with the YOT, aged 18, Huw completed the four-page Asset addendum, What do YOU think? Some of his responses are shown in Figure 25 below.

Huw’s responses indicate strong familial ties with his parents, ‘Mam and Dad’, perhaps intensified by the fact that he was in custody and therefore separated from his family. Huw’s comments also suggest some insight into the reasons for his offending – the positive feelings of adrenalin surges and peer approval – as well as a sense that he was imagining a future beyond being ‘in prison’. His aspirations to ‘settle down’ with a job and a girlfriend are shared by many people in prison, and although not necessarily realised post-release, do at least signify some desire to change. This is also evident in his wish to talk more with the YOT about the effects of his offending, as if to shore up his emerging intentions. As his time with the YOT had ended, however, this opportunity could not be realised. Though the opportunity to reflect on his behaviour and to engage in ‘cognitive skills’ work in prison might be available to him as an adult, it is not certain that the same degree of support the YOT provided ever would be again.

Figure 25 Asset section ‘What do YOU think? – Huw’s responses at age 18 What do YOU think?

Who is most important to you in your life at the moment? "Mam and Dad"

Why do you think you get into trouble? “Adrenaline rush of pinching cars and showing off in them in car parks or in a big space. Peer pressure, don’t want to look stupid”

What are the best things about your life at the moment? “Starting to think more about what I do and how it affects my future”

What are the worst things about your life at the moment? “I am in prison and have committed crime and to be sentenced, I don’t want to come back.”

What would you like to be different about your life in three months’ time? “Want a job placement, settle down with my girlfriend, and not commit crime.”

Is there anything else you would like to talk about with people at the YOT? “About stuff I will miss and what my actions do to other people”

6.2.4 ‘Ioan’ and ‘Lewys’ – a chaotic, ‘deprived household’ (Ioan, Asset)

‘Ioan’ and ‘Lewys’ are brothers, fifteen months apart, who do not ‘get on’. The brothers were selected as case studies on the basis that they grew up in the same household, with the same mother, and shared an equally disadvantaged background and upbringing, yet seemed very different in individual characteristics and personalities. I imagined it would be interesting to track their offending trajectories and outcomes, expecting them to reflect these differences. What was surprising, however, was that they both appeared to stop offending at around the age of 21, despite the multiple ‘risk factors’ present in their lives from a very young age. They both had histories of prolific and persistent offending – over 9 and 7 years respectively – and both started offending before the age of fifteen – another supposed indicator of persistence into adulthood (according to developmental life course theories). So what enabled their move away from crime, despite these ‘odds’?

One important factor was the low-level of their offending in terms of its seriousness: Ioan had a history of mainly theft and motor offences; Lewys’s were predominantly theft-related, public order and property offences. Since leaving the YOT Ioan’s most serious offence was ‘theft from person’; Lewys’s was burglary. Exploring other aspects of their lives reveals a range of factors influencing their behaviours. Electronic Asset records and other reports and assessments in their case files – manila folders, a total of 7½ inches thick between them – were the sources of the information summarised below.

‘Ioan’ At the age of 17, Ioan lived with his mother and her partner and his three siblings: two brothers aged 16 (Lewys) and 12, and a sister aged 9. He and his siblings had previously been placed on the child protection register for ‘neglect and emotional abuse’ and the family still had current

social service involvement. Ioan had spent several periods in residential care, remand foster care, B&Bs and crisis shelters, as well as several periods in custody in YOIs. His family home was described as a chaotic, ‘deprived household’ where ‘known offenders’ lived (in particular, his mother’s partner) (Asset). His mother was on benefits, not working, and although not a ‘known offender’, was due in court on charges (with her partner and son) of assault on a local woman.

The adults in Ioan’s life were described as showing little care or interest in him, and there was evidence of physical and verbal abuse. Ioan did not know his father, though expressed a desire to get to know him. Nonetheless Ioan had a ‘close’ relationship with his mother, who was ‘supportive’ of him, despite being ‘very ineffectual’ in providing consistent supervision or boundaries. Her children, it is noted, were generally clean and well-presented; her council house kept neat and in good condition. The family, however, had no friends in the neighbourhood and were socially isolated.

Earlier case notes indicate a history of Ioan ‘behaving badly’ and his parents’ ‘struggle to communicate’ with him. Also noted are tensions between the family and police in the local area. Disengaged from school (or any ETE) at 13 he was spending most of time with his offending peer group involved in low-level ‘nuisance’ behaviour: damaging property and being verbally abusive to others in the neighbourhood. Both he and his family seem to deny any responsibility for his offending, however, instead blaming other residents and police for ‘victimising’ and targeting him.

Other assessments and reports in his archived file paint a picture of a small, severely disadvantaged boy, with diagnoses of mild learning difficulties and conduct disorder. He had been ‘educationally statemented’ and was excluded from mainstream school, having attended six schools by the age of 11. It is noted that his small stature affects his sense of self-worth. Though described as manipulative, one educator notes that ‘when [he] presents as angelic, he is very believable’ (Case file notes).

The neighbourhood where Ioan and his family lived was known as a ‘crime hot spot’ and there were many other ‘PPOs’ (‘prolific’ young ‘offenders’) in the area. Ioan believes that if he moved from the area he would stop associating with his ‘pro-criminal’ peer group (Asset notes, 2009). At the time he was not engaged in any education, training or employment and therefore lacked structure in is life. A regular and ‘risky’ user of alcohol, cannabis and heroin, Ioan’s offending was mainly stealing to fund his heroin use – he smoked heroin two or three times every day (at a daily cost of £20-30) – which impaired his daily functioning.

His case notes suggest that, at 17, he perceived himself as having a criminal identity and believed further offending is inevitable, although he indicated some understanding of the effects of his behaviour and acknowledged his inability to reduce his heroin use without support. The main factor in Ioan’s life at that time, though, was his four-year relationship with his girlfriend who was pregnant with their first child and with whom he was keen to ‘get their own place’. He stated his desire to ‘address his substance misuse issues’ (Asset), which were the reason he had offended most recently, stealing a £40 printer to sell for heroin. His Asset record (under ‘positive factors’) noted that ‘he seems genuinely enthusiastic’ about the imminent birth of his child, and that ‘this could be a turning point in his life’.

Ioan had a long history of substance misuse. A ‘throughcare’ assessment45 when leaving custody, just before his 19th birthday, contains his self-report of:

 Cannabis: daily use at 13  Valium: daily use at 14-15  Amphetamine: use at 14-15  Ecstasy: use at 16  Heroin: daily use at 14-15, though he had apparently been ‘clean’ for 18 months

His chief motivation at that time was his daughter. His stated goals were:

 ‘to stay out’ of prison  ‘eventually get a job’  To gain access to his daughter  To stop all substance use, except cannabis (he was unsure about this)

This assessment recommended ‘motivation work’ with Ioan to maintain his focus on these goals in the community.

When transferred from the YOT to probation six months later, at 19, his final Asset notes that his mother had recently remarried and was moving to live with her husband; she did not plan to take Ioan or his brother Lewys with her. His grandparents, with whom he has contact, also refused to have him live with them. When Ioan found out this news, on his release from custody, he reoffended two days later, injecting and overdosing on heroin.

At 19 he was in prison again, where he had not been using, but admitted that ‘now he was off the drug free wing he felt tempted to use’ (Asset) again. During this, his longest sentence, he had time to think and ‘says he does not want to spend time going in and out of prison’ (Asset). The things that made it hard for him to ‘stay out’ were: his heroin addiction; his entrenched offending patterns; his peer group; his drug debts; and that he copes well with prison, suggesting it had little real deterrent effect. Also while his relationship with his mother was ‘good’, ‘her attitude may not encourage him to comply with orders’. Nevertheless, he was motivated to change his life and to cooperate with other people to achieve change. Given that his last recorded offence was just before his 22nd birthday, and he is now 24, it appears that he may have managed to do so.

‘Lewys’ Lewys was born fifteen months after Ioan (to Ioan’s mother and step-father). Since the age of 14 (when he started offending) he has spent periods of time in residential care, foster care, secure children’s home, YOI, supported lodgings, B&Bs, staying ‘with friends’ (Asset). None of his voluntary (s.20) LAC placements was successful and he has lived at home with his mother since he was 15-16, with his two younger siblings. His father is involved in offending and has spent time in custody, as have his mother’s other partners. His childhood was characterised by ‘violence, rejection’, and an ‘emotionally difficult home environment’ (Asset). He does have a positive relationship with his maternal grandmother who provides limited support.

Lewys has been diagnosed with ADHD and learning difficulties (LD) that mean he ‘functions well below his chronological age’ (Asset). His emotional and psychological difficulties mean that he has

45 Part of a Release Plan prepared by the YOI’s Counselling Assessment Referral Advice Throughcare (CARAT) team in 2010.

‘limited understanding and coping skills’, which manifest outwardly in ‘very challenging behaviour’ (Asset). He takes medication for ADHD but needs his mother to monitor this; when anxious, for example, he refuses to take it. In custody he struggles: he has self-harmed and is at risk of harm from others. He also has asthma, for which he has medication (‘two pumps’) prescribed; and he smokes tobacco.

As described above, the household was chaotic, and the family moved several times due to neighbourhood disputes. This instability was noted as a risk factor for his offending. For example, though he enjoyed playing football and showed an interest in bikes, his unsettled accommodation prevented any structured involvement in these activities. Susceptible to peer influence, he mainly associated with ‘pro-criminal’ peers in the neighbourhood and when in care. At 16, Asset records note that his mother often responded to his offending by requesting that alternative accommodation be found for him. This perhaps reflects YW02’s observation about children being ‘looked after’ as a rite-of-passage in some families (see 5.11).

According to his school, foster carer and grandmother, throughout his young life Lewys displayed inappropriate behaviour and poor communication skills when challenged or when he could not have his own way. He has a history of destroying property and verbal aggression. At 16, after several incidents of fire-starting in his care home in a short period of time, his case worker notes:

[Lewys] states he does not want to reoffend but I fear he is unable to control his behaviour and is easily led by others. (Asset)

He has attitudes that reflect his mother’s strong influence, her negative, ‘anti-establishment’ views towards authority and agencies, and her tendency to collude with her sons. This is partly why at 16, despite his desire to avoid future offending, his YOT worker notes that ‘his lifestyle and family dynamics [and] lack of opportunities will make it difficult to effect change’ (Asset). His LD, ADHD and level of social functioning has limited his ability to form long-term positive relationships. Easily influenced, he associates with ‘offenders’, uses drugs to block stress, and relieves boredom by being a ‘nuisance’. Though chronic in his reoffending, he does nevertheless work well with the YOT.

In his last Asset, aged 19, on DTO licence with ISS, his worker summed up his ongoing social and emotional difficulties, describing him as:

A vulnerable young man who will drift in and out of relationships/peer groups as he has no firm foundation to make more positive choices. (Asset)

Like his brother Ioan, Lewys felt abandoned by his mother’s decision to leave the area with her new husband (a very heavy drinker whom she met on the internet), without him. He has had difficulty coping with this situation, and since accidentally overdosing on ‘MSJ’ (street Valium), he stated that ‘he will continue to take quantities of pills until his mother agrees he can go back to live with her’ (Asset). Despite her lack of support, Lewys still saw his mother as a positive in his life. He recently made contact with his birth father whom he had not seen for several years; his worker notes that he may have ‘unrealistic expectations of this renewed relationship that may well lead to further disappointment and rejection’ (Asset).

Rejection is a strong theme in Lewys’ life. Notwithstanding it is the basis of his vulnerability and instability, it also underpins his incentive to avoid further offending, as his worker wrote:

His motivation lies in the fact that he needs to be crime free in order to be ‘allowed’ to return to live with his mother, the factors surrounding his abandonment greatly compromise his ability to be able to achieve this, nevertheless, it is something he believes in and this has to be noted. (Final Asset)

At this time, aged 19, Lewys had recently made ‘new acquaintances’ and was living in a one- bedroom flat. His lack of income and limited independent living skills made this situation tenuous and possibly unsustainable. Given that his last recorded offence was just after he had turned 21, and he is now 23, against these odds he appears to have made some change.

6.2.5 ‘Morgan’ – ‘abject poverty … and day-to-day uncertainty’ (Asset)

Though up-to-date reoffending data were not available for Morgan, his offending trajectory (depicted in Fig.26 below) certainly suggests a process of a natural move away from criminal activity; that – perhaps spurred by a period spent in ‘secure’ – he ‘matured out of’ crime. Exploring his case history, however, at least at first glance, gives little indication of this likelihood.

Figure 26 ‘Morgan’ – Number of offences, custody and intensive supervision

18 16 14 12 5 mths No. of offences custody 10 8

6 No.of offences 4

2 ISSP 0 DTO 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Age in years ‘Morgan’ had his first contact with the justice system before his tenth birthday, when he received a first warning letter documenting several incidents of ‘antisocial’ behaviour including verbal abuse, threatening and aggressive behaviour and vandalism. These civil ‘offences’ (he was not criminally responsible until the age of ten) were seen as escalating in seriousness, becoming increasingly violent and abusive. While most were committed with his siblings (primarily his brother), CCTV footage suggested Morgan to be the ringleader. One YOT worker noted that ‘the children believe they are helping mum by fighting her corner’ (Asset). At the age of 11 he was charged with six low level offences and received his first reprimand, a referral order and an ASBO, all within a six-month period. Over the ensuing two years, his increasing ‘reoffending’ mostly comprised breaches of the ASBO and other orders. Then, following a burst of burglary and theft- related offending, he received a custodial sentence – a twelve month DTO – and was sent to a secure children’s home at 14.

As well as Morgan’s Asset records his physical case file was explored. This contained hard copies of information contained in the electronic record including: Assets; Court Orders; letters to the

young person about court orders; workers’ correspondence; prosecutor’s information; YJB Placement Alert Form (when he went into custody); contact records; police reports including witness statements; sentencing history; breach reports; court and panel information; and copies of local newspaper articles that referred to ‘Morgan’ and his brother being ‘named and shamed’ by the court-ordered ASBO. These gave a sense of the notoriety of the family for their ‘antisocial behaviour’ in the local community. From all this information the following word-picture was assembled.

Morgan grew up living with his mother, brother and two older sisters in a ‘deprived estate with a lot of delinquency’ (Asset), with three other sisters living independently in the area. The family had moved from their council house several times due to antisocial behaviour and non- compliance with directions. The children were on the child protection register for emotional abuse and neglect. Their mother was described as ‘at times uncooperative, verbally abusive and only engages when she feels like it’ (Asset), presumably if she perceived some direct advantage to do so. ‘This is a common theme that runs through her interaction with all … [local] agencies’ (Asset). There was a lot of rivalry between Morgan and his brother, despite often offending together. His sister was also known to the YOT. His mother, who had served a custodial sentence, suffered from agoraphobia, other health issues and a history of abuse. His father – ‘extremely violent and abusive and a drug user, injecting amphetamines’ (Asset) – had been thought to have committed suicide but was later found to be living elsewhere in the UK.

Case notes describe the home situation as ‘chaotic and unruly’, in a ‘poor state of cleanliness’, and that the mother ‘failed to create any boundaries or routines’ for the children (Asset). Her emotional abuse of them was erratic, dependent upon on her state of mind, and exacerbated by the children’s behaviour. The children’s sleeping arrangements were ‘unsuitable’: they had no beds (the boys destroyed them after the family received a grant to buy them); their sister regularly slept on a chair in the living room, while her mother slept on the sofa for fear of ‘intruders’. She had wired up the back door to the mains electricity supply, also supposedly to protect from intruders, although workers suggested it was to keep social workers at bay. Other issues of concern were identified as the ‘lack of cooker, washing machine, heating and food’ (Asset) – conditions of abject poverty.

Morgan had been permanently excluded from two primary schools. At an alternative centre focused on integrating children with emotional and behavioural difficulties into mainstream education, he was observed as being often tired, lethargic, unwashed and wearing grubby clothes. At school it was noted that he was ‘always hungry’ (Asset). He was referred to a Pupil Referral Unit but failed to attend. Despite concerns about his emotional health, and the fact that he was smoking at age 10 – his mother ‘gives him the odd fag’ (Asset) – he was in relatively good physical health, with no misuse of alcohol or other substances noted. According to case notes, his ‘only “addiction” is to motorbikes’ (Asset).

‘Demonised in the community’, ‘hero-worshipped’ by kids (Asset notes) His mother believed that Morgan was ‘psychologically scarred’ (Asset) from an experience as a three-year-old: he was abducted by a family friend and subsequently hospitalised for a week as a result of injuries he sustained. Case notes, however, suggest that his mother ‘fails to protect [Morgan] by continually reminding him of this historic event, therefore conveying that he is absolved of any responsibility for his behaviour’ (Asset). Whatever his difficulties stemmed from, it is clear

that Morgan’s behaviour was shaped by his family’s behaviour and experience, and the normalisation of uncertainty:

[Morgan’s] family background is one of historical abuse, [he has been] witness/subject to violence, family offending and drug use, abject poverty, vilification from neighbours/agencies, and day to day uncertainty [about food, shelter, clothing] … he sees offending as the norm and a way to obtain things … [it is] difficult for him to change his way of life and his attitudes because this is all he has known. (Asset)

At the age of 14, Asset records note that Morgan is ‘not a “dishonest” boy’, but express concern about his ‘limited abilities and his labelling … [in the community] when made subject to an ASBO’, given that Morgan ‘is aware of the negative image of him … in the locality’ (Asset). Asset records note that

[Morgan] has a strong criminal identity in his community and he enjoys the notoriety that this brings him … He is currently hero-worshipped by the kids of about 10+ in the community which he loves. … After being demonised in the community it is not hard to understand why [Morgan] basks in the adoration of youngsters … who are in awe of him. This is the only positive input that he has in his life. (Asset)

When seen in the context of the family’s social isolation and exclusion, Morgan’s lack of any other source of positive feedback seems even more troubling:

The family’s reputation goes before them and this has led them to not receiving the level of support from outside agencies that should have been implemented to bring about positive change. … [Morgan and his brother are] blamed for pretty much everything that happens in their neighbourhood. (Asset)

His usual coping mechanisms and lack of motivation to change reflect

[The] example [his] family set him and the low expectations the community has of him and he has of himself … [He] finds it difficult to see any other way of life for himself. (Asset)

His time spent in ‘secure’, however, seemed to have had an effect on Morgan. Notably, his behaviour in custody was ‘mainly positive and helpful’ (Case file notes). Following his early release, his worker also noted significant improvements at home:

…things much improved with Mum now in possession of [a] new washing machine, cooker, etc. and also in receipt of benefits. Mum has just purchased a new TV for [Morgan’s] bedroom and … new clothing. … [Morgan] appears much happier … spending more time in the family home rather than out with his mates. (Asset)

Morgan, now 15, had also begun ‘taking an interest in how the home looks.’ A few months earlier a worker noted that:

[Morgan] does not see himself as a bad person and has shown many positive qualities. Mum sees [Morgan] as mainly misunderstood and to some extent I can see why. (Asset)

Perhaps an enforced separation between Morgan and his ‘criminogenic’ family setting created the space required for him to begin to see the possibility of change.

Morgan’s last Asset, at the age of 15, noted that he was much ‘more settled and not offending’, and that ‘he is definitely maturing’. Morgan now had ‘hopes’ and ‘plans for his future’, buttressed by his ability ‘to build strong positive relationships with YOT and ‘resi’ [residential] staff’, and that fact that his mother seemed ‘more amenable to working with agencies’ and ‘much more supportive of professionals working with’ Morgan (final Asset). This was important because of the ‘strong bond’ between Morgan and his mother. Though there was ‘always [the] possibility of further offending within the family’, his worker noted, Morgan had hopes and ‘plans for his future and this has helped to motivate him to avoid offending and change his lifestyle and patterns of behaviour. Hopefully he will be able to maintain this in the long term’ (final Asset). His motivation speaks of a deep desire for his life to be different.

6.2.6 ‘Rhydian’ – ‘a horrendous childhood’ (YW18)

This case study was supplemented by a face-to-face interview with ‘Rhydian’ (see 6.3.3), now aged 21 and serving seven months in adult prison. I have pieced together Rhydian’s story from his electronic Asset records, physical case file documents, and interviews with Rhydian and with YW18 who worked with him at the YOT. The first part of his story is focused on his childhood and teenage years. The second part (see 6.3.3) draws on his own reflections on his experience and growing up.

The youngest of three children, Rhydian was close to his siblings, though his older brother (who lived at home) was also involved in offending. His sister, who is a strong and confident character, provided a stable environment and a source of support for Rhydian. He had limited contact with his father who has a history of violence within the family. As one of his YOT workers described, his ‘horrendous childhood’ included witnessing ‘harrowing domestic abuse’ (YW18). Until the age of 14 Rhydian lived with his mother, towards whom he was described as ‘manipulative’ and ‘domineering’ (Asset). Later, however, at the age of 21 (while he is in custody), his girlfriend is living with his mother whom he speaks of as a source of great support (Rhydian, interview).

His worker described Rhydian (at the age of 15) as ‘likeable if very immature’, having ‘attitudes and world views that require consistent challenging’ (Asset notes). His file (and he himself, when I interview him later) describes the sort of anti-social behaviour that characterised his prolific and persistent offending in his teens: he had 49 convictions for 60 offences which predominantly involved damage to property, theft, and harassment of the local shopkeepers (racially aggravated); he was, in his own words, ‘a nuisance’ (Rhydian, interview). He received a two year ASBO when he was 14, and he first went into custody at 14 and a half for breaching it, with four traffic offences that resulted in a DTO. This followed the breakdown in his accommodation with his aunt, after which he was placed in foster care.

His aunt’s house had provided Rhydian with structure, boundaries, positive relationships and a ‘caring environment’, to which he responded well for a short time. Case notes outline his ‘traumatic childhood’ and ‘dysfunctional family background’, however, that give rise to ‘doubts as to whether he can actually deal with the normality of family life that he has [at his aunt’s]’ (Asset). Raised in ‘an environment where anger [and] abuse’ characterised family relations, Rhydian was ‘prone to outbursts of anger’ which was seen as ‘learnt behaviour as he has witnessed violence throughout his young life’ (Asset). His ‘strong often discriminatory views’ and racist attitudes were seen as ‘entrenched by his parents and his community’ (Asset). Though his worker notes he ‘clearly has a need to be with his mother’, she had ‘difficulty being consistent’ with Rhydian and struggled

to provide ‘boundaries and structure in his life’ (Asset notes). Workers observed that he ‘dominates his Mam’ who tended to ‘give in’ rather than challenge him (Asset).

In lieu of constancy in his family relationships (notwithstanding the support of his sister, his love for his mother and her best efforts to try to motivate him), he found acceptance, self-esteem and approval in his peer group – all ‘significant offenders’, known to the YOT – who ‘e’ (Asset). The dominance of the influence of his peers in his life is apparent in notes in his Asset records: that custody had no deterrent effect on him; his ‘aim in life’ was to ‘go to an adult prison’; and that ‘“fitting in” and being accepted as part of a local strong [offending] peer group is where he acquires his sense of self-worth and self-esteem’ (Asset). From his worker’s perspective, this ‘mirrors the domestic abuse he witnessed as a child’ and may account for his apparent confidence ‘when faced with altercations [and] confrontational incidents’ (Asset). His confidence seemed to increase after he spent time in custody (in YOI), which apparently boosted and reinforced his reputation and identity among his peers.

His worker also noted that his experience of trauma and disruption may explain his ‘lack of motivation’ to change or ‘concern for the consequences’ of his behaviour (Asset). Although under ‘vulnerabilities’ it was noted that ‘he will not accept or engage in any work on a voluntary basis’ (Asset), Rhydian was nevertheless described as always respectful and polite to staff, and that he engaged well with the ISSP team with whom he formed positive and trusting relationships. ‘Work’ involved helping Rhydian ‘identify short term incentives’ to build on ‘progress made during the intervention period’ (Asset). Despite a few months earlier being described as ‘not ready/prepared to make any positive changes’, and that he ‘does not appear to want to change at this present time’, Rhydian’s progress at the end of his last DTO with ISS (at the age of 17 and nine months) included: his ‘efforts to behave in a more appropriate manner within the social setting’; engaging with facilities and with ‘pro-social’ people; and ‘attempting to detach himself from the perception that others have of him’ (Asset). These comments suggest he was starting to mature. We meet him again below, at the age of 21, when I interview him in prison. 6.3 Interviews – The voices of young people six years on

The four young men interviewed – ‘Rhydian’ (now 21) along with ‘Elis’ (aged 23), ‘Dylan’ and ‘Gareth’ (both 22) – had all grown up in the same area. All had participated in a culture of Valium misuse which drove their increasingly serious offending. All had created spaces in their offending and the three older boys had managed to stay out of trouble for at least a couple of years. They were more clearly in transition towards a crime-free future. Although Rhydian was in custody, he too had been ‘doing so well’ (YW18) in the community. Although their histories all spoke of family dysfunction and disadvantage, the most significant stabilising factors in their lives were their relationships with their girlfriends – and, for Dylan and Gareth, their children – and, for Dylan, ongoing work. Their insights and reflections brought to light additional themes explored here.

6.3.1 ‘Dylan’ and ‘Gareth’ (aged 22)

Now aged 22, Dylan and Gareth both started getting into trouble around the age of 13. The semi- rural, deindustrialised area where these boys grew up, along with Elis and Rhydian, was plagued by unemployment, deprivation and disadvantage. For them, growing up, there was ‘nothing round here … we had nothing to do’ (Gareth), ‘nothing at all’ (Dylan):

The only thing is when you get in trouble you’ve got the YOT to help out and that’s it then, otherwise you’ve got nothing. (Dylan)

At that time, ‘street Valium’ was prevalent in their community and largely drove the escalation in their offending and ‘out of control’ behaviour (stealing cars, fighting, robberies):

As soon as something winds you up … that’s it then. As soon as that adrenalin kicks in with whatever’s in there it connects like nothing and you are just wild. … And the blue lights was like an attraction … If he has done something and been arrested I will get arrested with him next time. That’s the reason we’d do it. … We terrorised our streets (Gareth)

As a result, they were feared and demonised within their community. But they felt excluded in other ways too: Gareth’s family ‘were always happy … to send [him] to the YOT’; Dylan’s ‘just got fed up’. The boys perceived that the school gave up on them as well:

With me, because … my mother wasn’t really much bothered, [the school] just used to ring the Youth Offending and say come and get him. They [the school] didn’t try nothing. (Gareth)

At the YOT, in contrast, they found space and support:

It used to work because many times my head needed clearing, I needed time to clear my head, and I would be happy then for the rest of the day. (Dylan)

[I needed] just someone one-on-one with me. Many times I’ve had talking and opened up to people here because they give you the time to listen. … When we … let them in they helped us a lot. … I used to bottle things up, I wouldn’t let no-one in. It took a lot for them to get through to me, but when they did it worked. (Gareth)

At the YOT, boundaries and expectations were clear. They received encouragement that was clearly lacking at home and at school: ‘if you were doing well they would let you know you were doing well’ (Gareth); and, equally, ‘if you were doing badly they would let you know you were doing badly, they wouldn’t just leave you to get away with it’ (Dylan). In this way, from these boys’ perspective, the YOT was:

…good at getting you on the right track, and keeping you here, making you feel rewarded, and that’s all you need to do really isn’t it? (Gareth)

The YOT met the boys’ unmet educational needs too:

I learned a lot more things here than I learned in school, they used to come down here on a Sunday. You wouldn’t get many youngsters out on a Sunday going to a youth offending school at 10 o'clock in the morning. I had my own cereal and everything. [So it was like a second home?] Yeah it was, I was lost without it. (Gareth)

Both young men emphasise the time it took for them to change:

There was a lot of changing to do, and if you change there are still people around you, and the things that people think of you, and it takes a long time to change. (Gareth)

The biggest motivator for both has been becoming a father:

The kids and my missus have sorted me out … I think about the way I want my little girl to be brought up now, and I would never want my little girl to turn out the way I did. (Dylan)

Gareth – described in his case file as ‘a caring and loving father who is eager to provide for his daughter’ (Asset) – has ‘settled down’ with his girlfriend and now has two daughters. He says he is ‘trying to get a job, that will be a long journey but that’s what I’m doing’:

I think with me it is valuing the person you want to be … I like to value myself more than some down and out as they call them around here. I feel like I am too good for that. So it’s more how you actually picture yourself, and what you want to be as well. (Gareth)

6.3.2 ‘Elis’ (aged 23)

Elis has been in a relationship with his girlfriend for nearly two years: ‘she’s good for me … she keeps me out of trouble’. Now 23, he’s been ‘out of trouble now, two and a half years.’ He recently finished two years with probation. He stresses, however, that the transition from the youth to the adult service was initially disorienting and difficult:

When I left the YOT though I fuck’n spiralled – from 18, I left the YOT and went to probation, phoomp that was it then, they didn’t give me no support, they weren’t doing stuff with me and that like so I just went nuts then… (Elis)

This was because, in contrast to the intensive support provided by the YOT,

They don’t give you no … support, they just come in, ‘how are you, yeah, you alright, yeah, you doing good, yeah, see you next week’… that’s all I was doing, going in every day, ‘how are you, alright’, yeah, ‘sound, good’, yeah, ‘see you next week’, that’s it. (Elis)

At the YOT he felt understood, encouraged and supported: his worker ‘knew what made me tick, what I was a feeling, she’d know how to handle it’ (Elis). The YOT met his educational needs by providing opportunities to learn that he had not found at school:

I couldn’t read, I couldn’t write, I couldn’t do nothing, till up to the age of like fifteen, I was illiterate, but then the YOT put me in courses. (Elis)

He also felt contained to some degree:

If I didn’t have the YOT … I would’ve done a lot more crime, definitely, hundred percent. (Elis)

Because he ‘always used to bother with older boys’, he says, ‘I seen too much, too fast’:

When I was 14 I was bothering with 18 year olds, so I was looking up to them and seeing the stuff they were doing, so I was doing the same stuff as them when they were 18 as when I was 14, so you can imagine when I hit 18, the stuff I was up to, I was doing much worse stuff… (Elis).

Elis’s offending was serious: ‘burglaries, TWOC46s, street robberies, knife crime’ (Elis). It was largely driven by the group dynamic and a shared (though misguided) sense of loyalty:

46 TWOC stand for ‘taking without consent’ and referred to vehicle theft.

the group I hanged about with … we all bounced off one another … It’s really hard to stay out of trouble, like once he’s gonna do something, you’re always, you’ve got his back, you’re with him a hundred percent. (Elis)

Elis also talked about the Valium misuse that drove his increasingly serious offending:

Valium was the main thing for me – and I wouldn’t take like one or two I’d take like twenty and thirty, so I’d be out of my skull… and I’d start doing stuff like burglaries, … pinching cars, robbing motor bikes, you feel a bit invincible on it, you think ‘no-one can touch me’, and then you hurt a few people and you start fighting, and you start fights with people for no reason whatsoever. (Elis)

Reflecting on his experience with the YOT, he highlights an important aspect of working with young people like himself – the paradox of ‘the gap’. As he explains:

They tried to keep me as occupied as possible, but there’s still always a gap … That’s what they need to do, they need to give you a gap, to see if you’re gonna do crime, or otherwise how are they gonna know if it’s working or not? (Elis)

These ‘gaps’ became the fulcrum for his transition away from offending. Every opportunity to ‘slip up’ became an opportunity for ‘making progress’ and for potential ‘success’ (YW18). Elis talked about this in terms of ‘pushing the gaps’:

The first time I went to jail I went for four months, but there was like a gap of say eleven months, then I went back to jail for like eight months, then there’d be another gap for like a year, so every time I was making progress, even though I was going back to jail, and I was getting longer sentences … the gaps was pushing...

Elis’s comment recalls YW08’s observation of the ‘big gaps’ in offending (see 5.6) that many young people demonstrate, and how paying attention to those can create a sense of possibility, hope, achievement and gradual confidence-building.

In contrast some young people get ‘stuck on stupid’ (Elis). This can be to do with substance use and dependence, and can be reinforced by time in custody. It can also be reiterated each time ‘people judge you on what you’ve done’:

If you’re known, you ain’t got a chance, they’re gonna know what you’ve done in the past … they’re like, ‘oh you’ve done that and that – he’s no good to me, I can’t use him’, and that makes a person feel worthless, d’you know what I mean?

One result of feeling worthless is the view:

Well f**k it, I’m gonna rob this c**t tonight’ – sorry for my language – but that’s the way they’re thinking (Elis).

Though Elis expresses ‘regrets … for what I’ve done when I were younger’, he is pragmatic about his past and optimistic about his future:

It’s all done now, I can’t do nothing about that now, I’ve just gotta try and move forward, that’s the way it is, that’s the way it goes (Elis).

He has matured – ‘I am getting older now’ – and looks back on his younger self as firmly in the past: ‘I didn’t realise what I were doing when I was younger … [I was] just stupid is all, wrecking my life’. Now he is looking forward:

I want respect now, I want to be in with a social group … I want people to say like, ‘he’s a nice boy’, d’you know what I mean? Not like ‘he’s a criminal, he lives on the streets and he robs people’ … I want to have a social standing. (Elis)

He has made new friends, as he describes: ‘the people I bother with now have got a good social standard’. And, I ask, do they see him like that?

Yeah, now they do … ‘yeah you’re a good boy now’ (Elis)

6.3.3 ‘Rhydian’ (aged 21)

Rhydian is in custody for seven and a half months after he had a row with his girlfriend and ended up back in trouble with 'the boys' (Rhydian). This is at least his fifth custodial sentence. This time he does not want to come back. His worker related how last year, fearing another custodial sentence, ‘he was so scared … I think he would think twice about it’ (YW18). Whereas YOI was like an ‘e’ (Rhydian) – adult prison is very different. Reflecting on his childhood Rhydian says,

Most of my kid’s life [i.e. his childhood] I was a nuisance … for no reason … I wasn’t a very likeable lad when I was younger.

But it was mainly ‘the boys [he] was bothering with’ that lead him into offending, ‘just being the clown in the gang’:

It was just madness – [we] thought we was invincible – just robbing things, showing off, I was just there with the boys, just getting dragged into it. (Rhydian)

While he wasn’t really into ‘smoking green’ or drinking (he’d seen the damage that did in his own family), he did have a bit of ‘a bad patch of Valium’ (Rhydian) when he was young, which lead to escalating offending – from thieving to robbing people. He says:

It all started with the ASBO, it just broke me for about three years … living in B&Bs … it just broke me…

When Rhydian received a two year ASBO at the age of 14, the conditions of the order restricted him from the housing estate where he lived with his mother. Because he didn’t want his mother to lose her house, he moved out and lived with his sister for two years, but ‘she couldn’t keep track of me’ (Rhydian). This meant,

I was in and out of care, chucked me out of care, chucked me out of B&Bs, YOT have had to come and pick me up late in the night after I’ve been chucked out of B&Bs, it was pretty hard. … I was going here, there and everywhere, it was stressing me out … I didn’t want to go home, so I was out all hours, getting into trouble … I ended up breaching my ASBO 16 times… (Rhydian)

When I ask Rhydian if there was anything that might have made a difference, might have helped him stay out of trouble, he reflects:

100

If I could’ve got a little flat … if social services had tried to help me out, maybe I could’ve been a bit better, but I was getting moved from pillar to post, it was just dragging me down… ‘Cos they couldn’t find me a place I was [in a B and B] for four or five months … there was only a microwave in your room so you couldn’t cook… (Rhydian)

He concludes: ‘if it weren’t for the YOT … I don’t know what would’ve happened to me’. The YOT provided both support and containment:

It was a bit of both really – they wanted to keep track of me ’cos they were worried about me … I was a bit of a risk – but it was pretty good ’cos otherwise I would’ve got into more trouble. (Rhydian)

With the YOT he did a combination of ‘work inside the office’ and ‘outdoor activities’ – and they ‘helped me get gym passes’ (Rhydian). The YOT was very much ‘a part of all my kid’s life [i.e. his childhood], growing up’ (Rhydian), almost like part of his family he agrees.

What has helped him has been ‘settling down with [his] girl’ (Rhydian). In fact, that’s the only reason he’s in prison now – they had a row and he went and saw one of the boys he hadn’t seen for ages, and they ended up getting into trouble, getting caught and back in jail: he’s ‘gutted’ (Rhydian). But this is it, no more; his girlfriend does not have a criminal record and helps keep him on the straight and narrow. They would like to have children one day, and he says:

My missus says ‘you’re going to be strict’, because … what I went through I don’t want my kids growing up to be, and what I didn’t have, I’m going to make sure my kids have had. (Rhydian)

In the short time I spend with him in the prison interview room, it strikes me that Rhydian speaks of his earlier offending self in the past, referring to his childhood as ‘my kid’s life’ as if it were the life of another ‘kid’, or as if he has folded that life away inside a bigger adult life he has now embarked upon. He describes wanting to help other young people avoid the path he has taken, and the ‘shame’ he feels looking back on his life now. He seems a long way from the young person I had earlier met ‘on paper’. He seems much more like one of the ‘tidy boys’ that Elis describes, who (until recently) has been ‘doing so well’ in the community (YW18). His transition towards a crime free life illustrated the ‘ups and downs’ of that process. 6.4 Themes emerging from the young people’s stories

These stories bring to light some common themes running through the case files analysed and which connect to the literature explored earlier on. These themes are distilled and explored here under the following headings: transition, identity, and desire.

To remind and orient the reader, the young people whose case files I analysed are identified in the following section by gender ‒ ‘B’ for boy and ‘G’ for girl ‒ and a number (e.g. B4, G8). Only the young people who feature in the case studies and interviews (above) have been given Welsh names. Giving them a pseudonym was a way of differentiating the treatment of their data and bringing their stories to life. All the quotes referenced with a [B#] or [G#] are taken verbatim from Asset records relating to those individual young people whose case files I analysed. Where other case notes, documents and reports are cited, the source is noted.

101

6.4.1 Transition

The stories provide insight into many different processes of individual and social transition that young people experience and are subject to between childhood and emerging adulthood. These include the key transitions (identified by the young men interviewed) between the youth and adult probation systems, and from boyhood to manhood.

Transition from YOT to probation The dependency upon the YOT that Huw illustrates (see 6.2.3) suggested that his transition to adult probation would have been difficult and one of intense vulnerability. Although it is impossible to guess, he would conceivably have had a similar experience to that of Elis, who ‘spiralled’ out of control after leaving the YOT:

I left the YOT and went to probation, phoomp that was it then, they didn’t give me no support … so I just went nuts then (Elis).

Gareth, who also relied heavily on the YOT for support, similarly spoke of the very different approach of probation staff for which he was not fully prepared. While Dylan found ‘they will work with you, they helped me a lot’, Gareth turned 18 while he was in custody (having been sentenced at 17) and upon release found he was no longer eligible to work with the YOT:

Suddenly when we turned 18 we were expected to be responsible … it was like I was thrown in at the deep end, because I was used to the support. … I might have had one or two breaches and then the YOT have got hold of me and picked me up and brought me down, and I’ve told them I’ve been dealing with this and dealing with that. Then they make a way around it. So you have a chance… (Gareth)

The flexible, understanding and accommodating approach of the YOT contrasted starkly with the experience of adult probation, where:

…there they don’t care… you could be suicidal and they don’t care, they are just putting you back to jail (Gareth)

As Elis’s experience implied, Gareth identified the ‘first couple of months … [is] when you’re most vulnerable because that’s when you’re going to breach’ (Gareth). As a way of addressing this problem and to support young people through this period of heightened vulnerability, Gareth and Dylan suggest there needed to be a physical handover, not just ‘in paperwork’ (Gareth), but a ‘face- to-face’ meeting (Dylan) to introduce young people to probation workers so they know what to expect, just as YM07 described. These boys’ experience of probation, however, was of a largely punitive regime under which there are no second chances:

You make a mistake, they don’t even talk about it, boomph, there’s a strike you are going to prison, that’s it for you then. … They don’t want you to learn anything, they just want you to go in and get out of there (Dylan).

They’ve got to like you basically … if they don’t like you then that’s the end of it. … You get given up too easy on your probation. (Gareth)

102

In Dylan, Elis and Gareth’s experience, this was in sharp contrast to the YOT, who would ‘keep trying even if they think they are just talking to a brick wall, they just keep trying’ (Gareth); and where workers ‘won’t give up on you’ (Dylan), and ‘pretty much do anything to help you’ (Elis).

Transition to adulthood – boys, fathers, men

The presence or absence of fathers in boys’ lives was a strong theme running through many of the young men’s stories. Elis’s offending, for instance, was often driven by ‘attempts to ‘live up’ to the reputation his father has’ (Asset notes). For many others, having ‘no father around’ (YW18) meant they lacked a significant male role model. YM01 explains the implications of this lack:

Many of our kids … don’t have dad, uncle, whoever, older brother sitting down with them saying, you need to think about what you want to do … I go to work, you’ll go work. … Nobody’s having those discussions with our kids. (YM01)

Other young men, however, turned their lack of a father figure into a motivation to provide for their children, as Rhydian insists: ‘what I didn’t have, I’m going to make sure my kids have had’ (Rhydian, interview). Similarly, Gareth lacked family support and became ‘a caring and loving father … eager to provide for his daughter’ (Gareth’s Asset notes), as did another young man who was ‘determined to be a positive role model to his young son’ (B35), Asset).

For some boys – such as Bryn (see 6.2.1), Dylan and Gareth (see 6.3.1) – whose identity had been shaped around being ‘one of the boys’, being a father became the identity that allowed them to move away from offending. Their transition to adulthood was signified and accompanied by their transition into fatherhood, which was a strong indicator of their desire to take on adult responsibilities and their moving towards living a crime-free lifestyle. Both fatherhood and the role of fathers are thus deeply connected to the development of masculine identity and the experience of being a boy and becoming a man.

6.4.2 Identity

Aron (see 6.2.1) illustrates how, for some young people, an offending peer group meets their need for acceptance and to ‘fit in’. This was one of the strongest themes to emerge through the case file analysis, and the interview data, and hence many examples are included here. Other young people had the strong sense of being excluded from mainstream society and their search for identity was more of a personal, individual struggle. In some cases, family notoriety curtailed young people’s hopes and opportunities. For others, peers provided an approving ‘audience’ for their performance of a criminal identity. Dylan and Gareth (see 6.3.1) spoke of some of these experiences, and how fatherhood gave them an opportunity to craft a new identity. We turn now to these issues.

Fitting in For many of the young people being part of the ‘gang’ was an expression of their need to ‘fit in’: to gain the approval of their peers, the acceptance of others, and a sense of belonging to a group of other people with whom they shared a common experience of exclusion, rejection or otherwise not ‘fitting in’. For Elis crime ‘was just something I felt I needed to do to fit in’ (Elis, interview). For some, like ‘Rhydian’, their peer group was ‘everything’ to them (YW18). One young man, for instance, whose friends were all ‘heavily involved in crime and drugs’, liked:

103

...to be one of the boys …. [and was] likely to involve himself in offending behaviour in the future just to ‘fit in’ with the boys and gain acceptance e.g. getting into a stolen car. (B34, Asset)

The misuse of substances was often associated with this group identity and behaviour: for instance, the use of Valium (to which the boys interviewed later refer) was very much a social activity in which the boys engaged as part of a group, also offending together. The misuse of alcohol was also connected to the need for group membership and approval, as these examples show:

[B26’s] difficulty managing his emotions … exacerbated when he’s been drinking … leads to offending … [as he] seems to show off and act immaturely. (B26, Asset)

[B18’s] low self-esteem causes his reliance on alcohol and dependence on a group who will accept him. (B18, Asset)

A high proportion of the young men and women seeking identity within the peer group demonstrated their desire to fit in through their suggestibility: easily influenced, they would do anything to impress and be accepted by others. This was evident in B57’s use of comedy to cope and compensate for his low self-esteem, or B62’s ‘need to perform’ (Asset) for an audience. This need for approval was associated with the kind of reckless behaviour often linked with immaturity, for example:

Very naïve and emotionally immature … [he] will do anything to impress his peer group …not that he is unaware of the consequences of his actions, more that he is reckless or unconcerned about them. If he wants to do something he does it without thought. (B16, Asset)

[G7] presents as a very confident young person, but this clearly masks her low self-esteem and self-worth [indicated by] her behaviours, e.g. substance misuse and sexual promiscuity … [She is] extremely immature in her views … [and is driven by] her need to impress her peers. (G7, Asset)

Some young people’s sense of not fitting in resulted from family breakdown or dislocation, and/or going into care: this reflected what YW10 observed as a ‘struggle with themselves’. For a small number their ‘struggle with themselves’ reflected uncertainty about their origins: about being adopted, for example, or being unsure of their parentage; or being ‘dual heritage’ (B49, Asset) in Wales which has a predominantly ‘white British’ population. These young people felt like outsiders. This sense of being ‘other’ was expressed in young people’s experience of exclusion on different levels, in various settings.

Notoriety For some young people, their sense of being ‘other’ arose from their image in the community, where they were labelled as ‘risky’ or ‘trouble’, and thereby excluded from mainstream services and agencies. The case studies illustrate how some young people, such as Ioan and Lewys (6.2.4) and Morgan (6.2.5), were so labelled because of their own and their family’s behaviour and/or reputation in their local area. Notoriety in these cases was a burden and an obstacle to the young people’s desire for change. For others, notoriety served as a functional identity – performed, reproduced and reinforced through continued offending.

104

For many young people, the ‘kudos’ of a criminal identity gave them currency within their peer group, as these examples suggest:

Quite a naïve young person … influenced by older peers … being part of this group has given his ‘status’ … [He] appears to label himself as a criminal which obviously has an effect on how he perceives himself … ‘I am well known in the area and people always blame me’ … [which] may affect his motivation to change. (B11, Asset)

An immature young man with poor thinking skills … his peers …perceive [him] as an ‘idol’ … an image [he] thrives upon. (B32, Asset)

For some of the young men and women, this notoriety seemed to motivate their continued offending. It became a social identity that provided them with a sense of being someone, recognised for something, though not necessarily aligning with their deeper sense of self. For instance:

He seems to enjoy the notoriety of being an offender. When I asked him why he committed [the] current offence, he replied ‘that’s what I do’. I felt that he was showing off … rather than really thinking about the reason he offended. (B23, Asset)

Sometimes this was associated with the reputation of family members, for instance:

[B33’s] older brother has a renowned reputation on the … estate … [B33 was] attempting to imitate his behaviour … [he] has something to prove because of who his brother is … [and he] thrives on his reputation in the community. (B33, Asset)

For others, this notoriety was a mantle rather than a motivator: it functioned as both their social and individual identity, becoming a core part of who they were. For example:

[B24 who] established himself as a major player amongst a group of persistent offenders. (B24, Asset)

[B52] more of a ringleader than a follower … clearly feels at home in the company of his pro- offending peer group. (B52, Asset)

For these ‘ringleaders’ and ‘major players’ the attention, respect and influence over others that their offending garnered seemed to fit with their personal orientation towards leadership and a desire for the ‘limelight’ – for public admiration and approbation. The emergence of this dominant characteristic was frequently seen to develop from earlier interactions with an older offending peer group, from which the identity was learnt, the mantle ‘inherited’. ‘B54’, for instance,

…looks up to these boys … [and his] willingness to do anything makes him a source of entertainment for these older peers … he clearly feels he belongs in this group, but … he thinks he is part friend, and part used by this group. (B54, Asset)

The functional aspects of this identity apparently become ingrained through repeated performance and peer validation:

[He] has developed his level of bravado to almost personality trait level, as he speaks with little insight into his self-perception as a criminal … [claiming that] in Parc ‘boys from

105

Cardiff, Newport and Swansea all knew my name’. … [He has a nickname and] clearly enjoys the notoriety that comes from having this moniker’ (B54, Asset)

Despite the seeming innocuousness of this ‘bravado’ he appeared determined to promote this identity, as implied in his escalating violent and intimidating behaviour including bullying other young people in custody, ‘making outrageous statements to professionals about his previous behaviours and intended future behaviours’ (B54, Asset notes), and the fact that he:

Sees [notorious prisoner] Charles Bronson as an appropriate role model. (B54, Asset)

At the age of 17 and a half, B54’s case file was marked: ‘Do not see alone’, signifying the YOT workers’ perception of risk to their safety.

This type of behaviour manifesting extreme identity adoption was frequently associated with competition between young men, in particular, who engaged in one-upmanship, trying to outdo each other in offending and custodial outcomes (as YW18 observed):

We thought it was big and hard … If he’s been nicked I want to get nicked for something better. You’ve got to do something worse then, to make it a bit better. (Gareth)

For these young men, custody has little deterrent effect. As Elis admitted:

Jail … never scared me out of doing crime – not at all – I’ve been out, I’ve come out like two weeks and gone straight back in … all my boys [were] in there so … it’s just like being in my [home] area. (Elis, interview)

In lieu of other sources of approval and respect, the custodial setting reinforced their offending identity. It was only when there was something else to inspire hope – ‘something to lose’ (such as Bryn’s son), or something to gain (such as Elis’s ‘social standing’) – that the desire for a different identity, a different life, might take hold.

6.4.3 Desire

There is much emphasis on young people’s ‘motivation to change’ – frequently noted in terms of its absence in much of the Asset data. As Elis hints, however, the critical ingredient for young people’s motivation to bring about change in their lives is desire: wanting to change. He admits that while the YOT had ‘done their best for me … at the end of the day … it was just whether I wanted to do it or not’ (Elis, interview). This theme of desire manifest in sub-themes of hope and confidence, explored below.

Hope Some young people – like Alis and Aron (6.2.1) and Morgan (6.2.5) – expressed a strong desire for their lives to be different but felt unable to change their situation (Aron), or were ‘unsure how to go about it’ (B51, Asset). Echoing Aron’s sense of ‘hopelessness’, and that ‘despite wanting to he can’t change his situation’ (Aron, Asset), many of the young people’s stories illustrated this desire for change, their hope for a different life, and the expectations of others that change would (or would not) be possible. A pervasive sense of hopelessness was illustrated in quotes such as the following:

106

The low expectations the community has of him and he has of himself … [He] finds it difficult to see any other way of life for himself. (Morgan, Asset notes)

We don’t deserve a chance, we don’t, we’ve done crime, we’re bad people, we’ve done bad things, we don’t deserve no chance whatsoever (Elis, interview)

Hope, however, can be the antidote to hopelessness. Expectations based on a firm belief in people’s capacity to change can help to dislodge ‘stuck’ thinking, of the kind that YW08 observes: ‘kids will say subtle things like I can’t do that, I never do that, I can’t do that’. By creating chinks in these statements, challenging these negative perceptions, changes in thinking can start to be nurtured. These are the type of cognitive behavioural strategies workers referred to when they described positive, strengths-based ways of working with young people that spark hope and build confidence.

Hope alone, though, was not sufficient for young people to sustain change in their lives. Alis’s experience of writing to the judge to explain the reasons she got into trouble, and having her sentence reduced, highlights the need for hope to collide with opportunity to be realised. For Dylan and Gareth, the opportunity of fatherhood and to think about how they wanted their children to grow up collided with their hopes for a more positive future. Bryn’s story similarly tells of his desire for a different life, and how his hopes for change were realised in his opportunities to make new friends and become a full-time student. Though fuelled by his desire to see his son, these opportunities may not have arisen without the support of social services and the YOT working together ‘to ensure that these positive steps are being maintained’ (Asset notes). That these hopes manifest in change also attests to an emerging confidence that was able to be identified, supported and sustained to facilitate his subsequent ‘success’. This example highlights the role of the YOT and its partner agencies in facilitating young people’s access to opportunities, sparking and building confidence, and supporting the development of young people’s capacity to make and sustain change in their lives.

Confidence Sustaining confidence was seen as the key element in the chain linking desire, hope and motivation to change, and enabling change to be actualised. Confidence as a personality trait alone, however, was not necessarily indicative of a desire to change. For example, G10 was ‘an assertive young person’ (Asset) who:

…can present as a confident, articulate young person quite able to give her opinion in the presence of young people, adults and professionals working with her. However this air of self-confidence masks low self-esteem and high levels of anxiety. … [Her] engagement is often sporadic and changes in her behaviour can be short-lived. (Asset notes on G10)

So her confidence alone was not enough; however, when combined with stability in her chaotic lifestyle – such as when she was under a court-ordered curfew, or in custody where she was ‘polite, complaint and helpful on the unit’ (according to a Release Plan in G10’s file) – and her maturing naturally as she approached 17, she was able to demonstrate high levels of motivation ‘to avoid further offending and comply with her licence conditions’ (Release Plan). According to case notes, she showed:

Confidence and self-belief that she can take positive action to make changes …[she is] making plans to attend college … to study hairdressing. (G10, Asset)

107

Three months later, however, once her curfew was lifted, ‘things started to go downhill’, her motivation was ‘on the decrease … fuelled by alcohol and the influence of peers’ (Asset notes). G10’s experience is indicative of her natural confidence only being able to sustain change when recognised and supported through the containment of her chaotic lifestyle.

This example highlights the importance of young people’s readiness, maturity, and the importance of time: it takes time to establish trust; it takes time to build relationships; it takes time to gradually nurture hope and confidence in the context of those trusting relationships. As Dylan and Gareth pointed out (see 6.3.1), change is a slow process. Long-term change requires confidence which – with hope and belief – can gather momentum over time, as Gareth explains:

I would like to be in a better place, but I see myself working towards it, I don’t see myself going back any time at all, there is never going to be a step back, there is always just slowly … going forward. (Gareth, interview)

6.5 Typology of the young people in the cohort

Data from the interviews with YOT workers suggest different dimensions of young people’s prolific offending, which can be either sustained over time (persistent), or occurring in response to particular events (episodic). Within these dimensions, different drivers for offending were identified: young people being ‘anti-authority’, being ‘out of control’, and ‘every now and then’ responding to ruptures or crises in their lives. Analysis of the young people’s case files and narratives revealed similar themes, and subcategories within them, about the different factors and influences shaping young people’s behaviours and experience. These categories contain ‘types’ seen to broadly encapsulate the different characteristics of young people involved in prolific and/or persistent offending. These types, summed up in the diagram below, are explained in the paragraphs that follow.

Figure 27 Typology of prolific offending Sustained • Being 'anti-authority': the rebel, the entrepreneur (persistent) • Being 'out of control': the pest, the resigned, the seeker

Episodic ('bursts' of • 'Every now and then' reacting to ruptures or stressors: frequent offending) in care, in crisis

These types are not necessarily exhaustive, nor mutually exclusive: Ioan and Lewys, for instance, at first glance represent the ‘pest’ in their persistent low-level offending; yet they also fit into the ‘every now and then’ category of ‘looked after children’ whose pattern of offending, upon closer inspection – and when understood in the context of their family circumstances – may be seen to mirror events, transitions and ruptures in their lives. This example highlights the need to take this typology as a guide only, a catalyst for deeper exploration of and attention to the context of young people’s behaviours, and how this changes over time.

This typology is useful only insofar as it can help to inform understanding about the drivers behind young people’s offending and the sorts of intervention that might be effective in interrupting their patterns and bringing about positive changes in their lives. The implications for working with young people involved in ‘prolific’ offending, based on the interpretation of the findings and alluded to here, are not intended to be prescriptive or instructive. There is no ‘one

108

size fits all’ strategy proposed. The purpose of suggesting a possible focus of effective work with each ‘type’ is to highlight the importance of understanding the contextual factors underlying offending particular to each young person, to consider the type of strengths-based intervention most appropriate to their circumstances, resources, predispositions, desires, capacities and readiness to engage.

For young people who have grown up in families where criminality is the norm, ‘it becomes very much their way of life, and they feel that maybe they’ve got nothing to lose by offending’ (YW06, interview). The data suggest these children can fall into two categories: those for whom offending becomes a lifestyle that meets their needs satisfactorily; and those who want to live a different life but do not know how to go about it. The former is the ‘anti-authority’ type. The latter is the ‘seeker’, wanting to be different but not knowing how. Each is described below.

6.5.1 ‘Anti-authority’

Exemplifying the theory of social learning, the young people’s cases analysed in the study suggest that ‘anti-authority’ attitudes reflect entrenched pro-criminal cultures, norms and values, absorbed via family and other close social relationships. The young people for whom offending met their needs could be divided into two subgroups: the rebel, and the entrepreneur.

The rebel For the ‘anti-authority’ type, resisting and rebelling against rules and authority is a source of energy and excitement. For many young people this translates as ‘the buzz’ they feel when doing crime – the excitement, the thrill, the physical sensation of blood pumping and adrenalin coursing through their bodies – such as the young man described as:

A bit of a Jack the Lad … a self-confessed risk taker [who] offends for the buzz (B10, Asset).

For some young people, this may intersect with tendencies associated with ‘diagnosable disorders’, such as one for whom:

Enjoying it I suppose was the factor … and that’s very much linked to his diagnoses of the ADHD and the ODD, he got a kick out of what he was doing. (YW06, interview)

And another, also with ADHD, described as:

A ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ character, depending on whether he has taken his medication (B11, Asset).

For others, when the excitement of offending coincides with the endorsement of peers, family and other relationships of influence who demonstrate pro-criminal values, including normalised violence and/or substance misuse, offending can be seen as effectively meeting the need for a social identity that fits with their sense of belonging to a family or community model. Some young people seemed to ‘perform’ or cultivate a ‘dangerous’ identity, such as B40 who ‘identifies himself as a criminal and sees this in a positive way’ (B40, Asset); B24 who has ‘established himself as a major player amongst a group of persistent offenders’ (B24, Asset); or B15 who ‘is volatile and can be verbally aggressive and extremely challenging’ (B15, Asset). For others this need manifest in extreme identification with ‘criminal’ role models, such as ‘Caio’, described in a case file entry as

109

‘a very angry boy’ … ‘transfixed with media representation of gangsters’ (Asset); and another boy who,

Sees Charles Bronson [the notorious prisoner] as an appropriate role model … He has a mistrust of people in authority and hates being told what he needs to do (B54, Asset).

Other young people, like Bryn and Huw, are seen as simply reproducing cultural norms in which their lives are immersed. Examples of this ‘type’ include the young man ‘schooled by [his] mother and grandfather’ (B63, Asset); the boy who ‘often attempts to ‘live up’ to the reputation his father has’ (B36 [who is ‘Elis’], Asset); and another who

…feels that he is a victim of discrimination by the police … ‘his learnt behaviours … tend to reinforce the ‘blame others culture’ (B41, Asset).

For such young people whose families are indifferent, resistant or actively opposed to any engagement with services or ‘the system’, the challenge can be one of trying to identify and activate other sources of social support (and potential positive role models) within the community. For the type of young person whose offending stems from anti-authority attitudes and meets a need for excitement and a ‘buzz’ effective work might focus on redirecting and building leadership skills in more pro-social contexts. For young people starting to mature in their outlook and demonstrating an ability to reflect on their own experience, generative work focused on other young people may be seen as more relevant and useful. Elis, Dylan, Gareth and Rhydian, for instance, all spoke of their attempt to engage with other young people to try and help them avoid their own experience.

The entrepreneur For a small proportion of young people, their persistent offending was associated with more practical choices in the face of limited options – the young man whose passion for motor bikes, and for making money, coalesced into his successful ‘business’ of stealing and selling motorcycles, cars and parts, for instance:

He weighs up risks involved and as long as he stands to gain will take the risk. … [He has a pattern of] stealing motorbikes … to make money and he is entrenched in this lifestyle (B19, Asset).

Or the young man who:

Sees offending as a normal way of life … [and] a means to an end [supporting his expensive lifestyle choices] (B60, Asset).

An even smaller group within the sample were seen as manipulative, lacking in empathy, strategic in their offending and therefore highly risky or ‘dangerous’. This was seen as much a part of their personal style as a reflection of their life circumstances, though this may be have been skewed by personal assumptions underlying the assessment of workers, as these indicative comments suggest:

[He] presents as charming and funny … [but] quickly turn[s] into an arrogant and unpleasant young man (B7)

[His] behaviour at most time is very ‘odd’ (B48)

110

[He is] a dangerous young man (B4)

The strategic nature of this group’s offending (targeting specific victims, for example) ‒ together with their propensity for risk-taking ‒ may indicate a type of goal-orientation that could potentially be built on and developed towards more positive ends. Being strategic and goal- oriented are the qualities that connect this group with the ‘entrepreneurs’. Building relationships with these young people was seen as challenging; one way it may be best achieved is by trying to match workers and/or mentors on the basis of personality traits or shared interests. For young people whose offending seems to manifest entrepreneurial strengths, effective work might incorporate a focus on translating their skills and identifying motives and/or incentives to do so in a law-abiding context.

6.5.2 ‘Out of control’

Young people’s offending because they are ‘out of control’ is seen to emanate from severe disadvantage and vulnerability. Importantly, in terms of seriousness, it encompasses both high and low level offending and different degrees of escalation. In households where violence and substance misuse are normalised, and where conditions of chaos and disorder prevail, children’s behaviour can be seen as a manifestation of this socio-cultural context. These young people also fell into three distinct categories: the resigned – those who were to being let down, to being abandoned, who had apparently lost hope that things could or would ever be different; and the seekers – those who desire a different life but who may lack the opportunities and/or the skills and support to make this a reality. These two groups may be differentiated by a sense of hope and possibility. The third group – the pest – were seen as offending at a low yet persistent level, largely due to unmet complex educational, health and welfare needs.

The ‘resigned’ The ‘resigned’ are ‘the kids … who really don’t seem to care what happens to them or anyone else really’ (YW08, interview). The ‘out of control’ behaviour of these young people is seen as the outward manifestation of long-term experiences of abuse, neglect, abandonment, instability, lack of support and/or inconsistency of care. Their resignation suggests that they have given up any hope of things changing for them, or an inability to imagine the possibility that life could be different. The experience of some of these young people were characterised in the following examples of young men: ‘estranged from family and poor support networks’ (B66, Asset); ‘extreme emotional and behavioural difficulties’ (B2, Asset); ‘a significantly vulnerable young man’ (B47 [‘Lewys’], Asset); ‘he really is in a ‘no-win’ situation’ (B69, Asset); ‘a young man resigned to being abandoned and let down’ (B29, Asset); ‘a product of years of trauma and ADHD’ (B56, Asset) and with ‘a lack of regard for his own wellbeing’ (B39, Asset). As well as this particularly poignant assessment of Morgan’s situation:

[Being] hero-worshipped by [10 year olds] … [is] the only positive input … in his life (B67 [‘Morgan’], Asset).

For many of these young people the use and misuse of substances offers a way of coping and a degree of relief or release from psychological and emotional turmoil. Where this substance misuse becomes habitual, and drives further offending, their patterns can become entrenched. Some young people’s case files evidenced this theme: the young woman who ‘if [she] continues to misuse alcohol … is likely to have difficulties avoiding trouble’ (G10, Asset); and the young men for

111

whom ‘it’s all about the drugs’ (B65, Asset); ‘an entrenched poly drug user’ (B5, Asset); or the one with

A chaotic history of substance misuse … [who] has returned to drug use … [and is] reluctant to admit that there are issues (B25, Asset).

This is how some get ‘stuck on stupid’, in Elis’s words. Sustained substance misuse and dependency can lead to entrenched offending patterns and progression into the adult justice system. The outcome for many such individuals is described by YW18, reflecting on one young man for whom ‘custody is the safest place’, whose vulnerability she evokes with pathos:

You see him now and he’s so soft walking on the roads … In fact I think custody is the safest place for him because people were just abusing him. He was a target for people to give him a clout when they felt like it… (YW18, interview).

Young people who fit the category of being ‘resigned’ are characterised by a sense of hopelessness and somewhat passive acceptance of their circumstances. This can arise from a sense of having exhausted all available supports and services, such as one young woman whose ‘sense of rejection and isolation’ (G9’s Asset) was compounded by her perception that ‘no-one believed me’ (G9, quoted in her Asset notes). Workers may also succumb to a sense of hopelessness, as this comment implies, about a young man for whom:

…professional input feels like one step forward and several back (B56, Asset).

Effective work with this group is shaped by a strong focus on hope and gradually developing a sense of possibility. This can only be achieved through the building of stable, trusting relationships over time. Consistency of workers, within a supportive network of professional partnerships, is key to this process.

The ‘seekers’ Three different types of ‘seeker’ emerge in the data. The first is the young person desiring, aspiring to, longing for a different life but unsure how to go about it and/or lacking the skills and support to sustain it. This desire for change distinguishes these young people from the ‘resigned’ in that it represents a form of active resistance against their life circumstances, buoyed by hope and aspiration (see Bottrell 2009). This theme is embodied in storylines running through the case histories of some young people, like Aron, such as the young man who ‘wants to take control over his disjointed life’ (B3 [Aron], Asset), or another who ‘wants to sort his life out but is unsure how to go about it’ (B51, Asset). These young people were often described in terms of their positive personal characteristics, such as being ‘likeable’, ‘confident’, and ‘independent’, ‘well- adjusted’ and even ‘a nice young man who does not go out to harm’ (B64, Asset). These ‘positives’ were ascribed proportionately more commonly among the young women in the sample, however, for example (taken from their Asset notes): ‘G11’ – ‘a bubbly young woman with a great deal of personality’; ‘G6’ – ‘a very likeable young person’; and ‘G8 – ‘a thoughtful and caring young lady’. These characteristics were associated with these young people’s desire to change their offending behaviours and lifestyles. ‘Alis’ is an example of this type.

A second type of ‘seeker’ is the young person driven by the need and desire for acceptance, approval and sense of belonging and social identity that they seek within a peer group. These are different from the criminally acculturated group (the rebels) in that their search for acceptance

112

is seen as the overriding feature. This was a very strong theme throughout the sample, and frequently associated with cultures of substance misuse such as the excessive use of ‘street Valium’ which was prevalent across parts of the UK in 2009-10, and exemplified in some areas in Wales. The strong influence of peers also tended to be associated with a lack of maturity, as these comments typify:

[He was] likely to go along with suggestions from his peer group (B46, Asset)

[He is] easily influenced by older peers (B31, Asset)

His peers … perceive [him] as an ‘idol’ … an image he thrives upon (B32, Asset)

A very immature, spontaneous young man … will participate in inappropriate behaviour … to be part of the gang (B37, Asset)

Very naïve and emotionally immature… will do anything to impress his peer group (B16, Asset)

Seeks identity from his peer group … [and has a] misguided sense of loyalty (B17, Asset)

This developmental immaturity also frequently coincided with a self-protective mechanism or strategy that seemed to illustrate the young people’s need for acceptance:

Low self-esteem causes his reliance on alcohol and dependence on a group who will accept him (B18, Asset)

Low self-esteem and uses comedy and joking as a coping mechanism (B57, Asset)

Whenever [he] has an ‘audience’ he feels the need to ‘perform’ (B62, Asset)

The young men interviewed (Elis, Dylan and Rhydian) could be seen as representing this ‘type’.

The third kind of ‘seeker’ is one whose desire for change is based on key relationships or ‘turning points’ in their lives (to evoke Sampson and Laub’s notion). B35, for instance, who was ‘determined to be a positive role model to his young son,’ according to his worker’s notes in Asset; or ‘Gareth’, described in his file as ‘a caring and loving father who is eager to provide for his daughter’ (Asset). Other young people’s desire may be associated with something less tangible, such as their own readiness. The ‘bright and capable young man’ (B22, Asset), for instance, for whom:

No amount of CBT work could have stopped him prior to him making the conscious decision to change (B22, Asset)

For some young people this change was associated with their developmental stage and growing maturity, for instance: one boy who ‘brought himself up’, described as ‘an independent young person who has started to look to the future’ (B24, Asset); and a young man ‘for the first time … displaying real motivation to change’ (B21, Asset); ‘Rhydian’, for example.

For all young people characterised as ‘seekers’, the implications for practice are the same: it involves recognising, encouraging and supporting their desire to change and pursue a new positive identity for themselves. For young people whose ‘seeking’ and desire for change is characterised as a form of active resistance, the most useful and effective work is advocacy-based,

113

focusing on creating or negotiating opportunities and access for young people to participate in their community. This may include education, training and employment opportunities as well as recreational and interest-based activities through which to build additional and/or alternative sources of social capital (‘bridging capital’, according to the theory). An example is the YOT helping ‘Rhydian’ to secure ‘gym passes’ (Rhydian, interview) and taking him down to the gym until he was confident to attend by himself (YW18, interview). He was thereby able to meet non- offending peers with whom he had a new-found interest and experience in common. Supporting young people’s continuity and motivation in this way is also seen as critical.

For young people seeking acceptance and belonging within their peer group, as well the above, effective work may also involve relational work with other offending peers, harnessing other young people as allies to support the process of change (as Hill, 1999, suggests). For the third type of seeker, who is seen as more self-directed, effective work is also advocacy based but which may be more oriented to removing barriers and obstacles than creating opportunities and access. YM04 potentially risking her ‘professional reputation’ for ‘Joe’ is a good example (see Box 5.1).

The ‘pest’ The ‘pest’ is characterised by high-volume, mainly low-level type offending which is predominantly seen as nuisance behaviour causing annoyance, alarm and/or a threat to public order in a particular community. Because this type of offending overlapped with behaviour deemed ‘anti-social’ it was often subject to the civil remedy introduced under the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act: the Anti-Social Behaviour Order or ‘ASBO’. Since then, under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, ASBOs have been replaced with injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance (IPNA) and criminal behaviour orders (CBO).

The children and young people who fell into this category in the sample were seen as intensely vulnerable and disadvantaged, often lacking in pro- social (and/or) family support. Ioan, Lewys, Morgan and Rhydian all exemplify this type.

Figure 28 shows a flyer delivered to households in a particular area to announce an ASBO banning or restricting a specific young person’s presence, movement or activity within that local area. As well as a curfew and other restrictions, this order prohibited the young person from ‘Entering the [X] estate (for up to 6 months)’, ‘Touching or entering any motor car without the consent of its owner’, and ‘Sitting astride any motor cycle’. The flyer included the young person’s name, date of birth and photograph (these details, along with the name of the town, have been removed from this image).

Figure 28 Example of an ASBO flyer

114

Many of the young women in the sample were in this ‘anti-social’ category of the ‘pest’, such as ‘Alis’ – a young woman with ‘a lot of emotional turmoil within her’ (Asset notes) – and these others whose offending largely consisted of ‘anti-social’, public order-type offences:

[G7] a clamorous and turbulent girl who is increasingly out of control (G7, Asset)

[G8] a thoughtful, caring young lady … [who] tends to do stupid things (G8, Asset)

[G2] streetwise and confident … an extremely vulnerable young woman (G2, Asset)

[G11] a bubbly young woman … drawn to negative peers and alcohol use (G11, Asset)

[G12] a very damaged child … a tomboy (G12, Asset)

The most serious implication for young people labelled as ‘pests’ was the criminalisation of their behaviour which, for many, seemed inevitable in the face of stringent ASBO conditions that made compliance difficult, as the experience of Alis (see 6.2.1), Morgan (see 6.2.5) and Rhydian (see 6.2.6 and 6.3.3) attests.

The data suggest that work aimed at interrupting this persistent though low-level type of offending pattern needs to be focused on boundaries, and helping and supporting the young person to understand and adhere to boundaries. Effective work would also focus on identifying, understanding and meeting the young person’s complex needs, including educational, emotional, health and welfare needs.

6.5.3 ‘Every now and then’

For some young people, being ‘out of control’ can be an episodic response to crises and difficult transitions in their lives. For ‘looked after’ children this can relate to moving between placements, or residential settings where the child feels unwanted, unsafe and unhappy. For other children, the experience of loss, bereavement, crisis, transition or change in the family structure can similarly create a sense of disorientation and instability that can manifest in their challenging behaviour.

Looked after children As YW11 described, typical patterns of high-volume offending among looked after children (LAC) tended to involve ‘criminal damages, kicking off in foster placements, police being called’ (YW11, interview). Sometimes this was seen as the manifestation of a young person’s emotional difficulties, such as the young woman who told her worker, ‘I am doing this as I have a horrible life’ (G4, quoted in her Asset notes). Or because residential settings were seen to promote a culture of misbehaviour, as YW10 implied:

They know that what they’re doing is wrong but there’s an expectation that ‘you’re living here, that’s what you do’ (YW10, interview)

For ‘Bryn’ (see 6.2.1), for instance, whose prolific offending was associated with going into ‘resi’ care at 14, much of his ‘trouble’ related to his absconding from care to be closer to his family, and offending with other young people from the care home. For another boy, B50, being in ‘resi’ care seemed to be the source of the problems giving rise to his offending; once he left residential care, at 17, his offending ceased.

115

Another issue for young people in care was that the type of ‘prolific’ offending associated with LAC reflected tendencies at that time for residential care settings to problematise young people’s challenging behaviours quickly and reactively, which would lead to their criminalisation for behaviour that may be tolerated or resolved differently in another setting (such as a family home). Since that time, however, these practices have become more proactive, that is, much more focused on resolving issues using restorative means, before resorting to police involvement (see YJB Cymru 2013). For a young person such as ‘B50’, who ‘has not reoffended since he left resi [residential] care’ (B50, Asset), where most of his offences took place, this shift has meant that today he would be far less likely to be deemed prolific in his offending.

In crisis or transition Other young people whose offending was high-volume yet episodic, rather than persistent, were seen to be responding to crises, ruptures or breakdowns in their lives, with which they struggled to cope. Difficult transitions might include the child whose parents’ separation caused significant change in the family structure, for instance, a parent going into custody, a sibling being removed from the family home, or bereavement or other significant loss. Another transition to which young people were susceptible was leaving the YOT and moving to the adult probation service, as ‘Elis’ described (see 6.3.2), whose offending ‘spiralled’ out of control for a period following his transfer to probation.

The sort of work seen to be most effective in stabilising young people in the ‘every now and then’ category (including ‘looked after’ children and those in crisis or transition) is focused on meeting the young person’s need for stability and consistency, and supporting their transitions by strengthening relationships (via strong networks of professional partnerships) around them.

These types are not mutually exclusive, as mentioned and as some of the young people show: Alis (see 6.2.1) for instance, can be seen as a pest, offending every now and then (for a relatively short period) in response to particular difficulties in her life, and a seeker, longing for a different way of living and being. These types similarly overlapped for Bryn at different times. Caio (see 6.2.2) can be seen as out-of-control, a seeker of approval, acceptance and belonging who, given the right opportunities, might have been supported to become a seeker of a different way of life. Yet with appropriate and effective intervention as a young boy, he may not have progressed from being a pest.

The porosity of the typology shows the importance of seeing young people in the context of the social, cultural and emotional factors underlying their behaviour, but also in terms of their capacity to change, to be different types, at different times and in different ways. This perspective gives a view of the whole person, through time, and not as a single or static ‘offending’ identity.

For Alis, this might mean responding to her by providing boundaries to contain her ‘out of control’ behaviour, meeting her need for stability, recognising and encouraging her desire to change and supporting her transition towards a pro-social life. For Caio, it would mean recognising, coordinating and meeting his needs for therapeutic care on a consistent long-term basis; importantly, this support would not emanate from the YOT, but from other services intersecting with the YOT only as needed. The implications for other ways of working with ‘prolific’ young people are discussed below.

116

7. Summing up the findings

This chapter draws together themes from the YOT workers and YOT managers’ perspectives, the analysis of case file data, case studies and interviews with young people themselves to sum up the main findings. This chapter also tries to make sense of these in relation to the literature examined earlier (at 3.2), and explore the implications for working effectively with young people to interrupt their prolific offending. 7.1 Understanding young people’s prolific offending

7.1.1 Understanding ‘prolific’ and ‘persistent’ offending

 Volume – the total number of offences committed/for which a young person is convicted  Persistence – the length of time (i.e. years) over which offending occurs  Frequency – the rate of offending within a particular time frame  Seriousness – both high level and low level

These categories mask significant heterogeneity between individuals, too, however: some young people commit a high number of offences within a short period in response to particular traumatic events, stressors or disruptions in their lives; their offending maybe frequent, perhaps episodic, but not necessarily persistent over a lengthy period.

Some young people react to long-term disadvantage and underlying trauma in their lives through persistent offending, either of a low-level ‘anti-social’ nature or more serious harmful behaviours; some is persistent but not frequent.

Some is both frequent and persistent and escalating in seriousness over time. These are the young people seen as most likely to become entrenched in the adult justice system, particularly where their behaviours coincide with serious substance misuse.

Notwithstanding these variations, generally the group characterised as prolific in their offending were seen to persist over a range of time periods, their offending behaviour a manifestation of complex, chaotic, difficult life circumstances often overlaid by the misuse of alcohol and other substances.

7.1.2 Measuring ‘prolific’ and ‘persistent’ offending

Persistence of reoffending In terms of persistence, the length of time over which young people were engaging in known offending, the data show that girls were in contact with the justice system for a minimum of two years and up to 13 years, that is, persisting for an average period of seven and a half years. For boys the length of time was slightly longer, with minimum period of 3 years’ justice involvement and up to 13 years, with an average of nearly nine years.

117

The length of time, in and of itself, does not reveal any changes in frequency, seriousness, or volume, however. Some of these other dimensions are captured below.

Volume of reoffending Reoffending data on the number of proven re-offences committed since young people left the YOT were gathered for less than half the sample (45%, n=46). Nonetheless, over half this group (52%, n=24) showed a notable reduction in reoffending frequency rate, as follows:

 15 young people (33% of 46) were convicted of 0-7 re-offences (average 3.33 each)  9 young people (19.5% of 46) were convicted of 9-15 re-offences (average 11.22 each)

That is, 52% were convicted of an average of 6.29 re-offences each since leaving the YOT, or a total of 151 offences, which (over roughly a four-year period) equates to a frequency rate of 1.57 per year (the number of re-offences divided by the number in the cohort).

Recall that, in 2009-10, there were 7,646 young people in the youth justice system across Wales (YJB Cymru, 2012). The reoffending frequency rate across this whole cohort was 0.93. Within this cohort, the 303 young people identified as ‘prolific’ committed a further 1,108 offences in 2010, indicating a reoffending frequency rate of 3.66. The frequency rate of the group above is significantly lower and indeed closer to the ‘normal’ frequency rate at that time of 0.93.

The remaining 48% (n=22) of young people were convicted of between 19 and 50+ re-offences each, with a total of 720 re-offences altogether, and an average of 32.73 re-offences each over roughly a four-year period, which is a frequency rate of 8.18 offences per year.

These figures show the diversity within the group. Although these reoffending data were not available for the whole sample, they show that a significant proportion of young people do become entrenched in offending patterns and their criminal justice involvement continues into the adult system. When we consider the degree of disadvantage, dysfunction and deprivation characterising these young people’s lives, this is perhaps unsurprising. This certainly seems to evidence the observation that ‘because they’re so entrenched … any behaviour is hard to get out of once you’re in that’ (YW10). More surprising is that a larger proportion of the young men and women show reductions in their offending, as the case study and interview data attest. This supports YW12’s experience that ‘people’s lives change’ (YW12), and that she has seen

…quite a few leading very successful and positive lives, it’s not all doom and gloom … I do think that the majority of young people turn it around (YW12, interview).

From the data gathered we can glean insights into what helps and what makes it hard for this diverse group of young people to seek and sustain change in their lives. 7.2 Why it’s hard to stay out of trouble

The range of factors at play in young people’s lives, both personal and social-structural, combined with various criminal justice and service agency-related obstacles to effective work, made it difficult for many of the young people in this study to stay out of trouble. These problems are elaborated here.

118

7.2.1 Young people’s lives

The YOT workers and managers interviewed for this study characterised the young people they worked with, who were involved in various kinds of prolific, persistent and frequent offending, broadly in terms of ‘absences’ (YW02), accumulated disadvantage, and young people’s ‘struggle with themselves’ (YW10). These themes reflect the criminological theories outlined earlier (see 3.1) about social bonds and social control, social learning and neighbourhood/community factors, and labelling processes and how these affect young people’s identity development. In addition, developmental risk factors that increase the likelihood of young people’s involvement in offending can be identified. As we discover, however, these offer partial insights; many other factors must be considered when trying to understand young people’s prolific offending. I explore some of these at 7.2.2, below.

‘Absences’ (YW02) The young people in this ‘prolific’ group were seen as missing critical ingredients in their lives: mothers or fathers; parents able to provide safety and security; adequate care, love and support of other family; positive adult role-models; adequate economic, social and educational resources, and opportunities to be valued and to succeed. As YW02 sums up, these young people are the same as other young people except that they have experienced significant ‘absences in their lives’:

From this perspective, young people’s thinking about themselves and behaviours towards other people ‒ such as a ‘casual attitude towards drugs, sex, the fact that their actions have got consequences, that people can be hurt and upset’ (YW02) ‒ can be attributed to the fact that ‘they haven’t … picked up much schooling’ (YW02), and to ‘indifferent parenting’ (YW02). YW02 explains that this can either be passive on the part of parents ‒ ‘where there’s been neglect, or through stupidity – really, really stupid parent; parents who are just plunged into difficulty’ ‒ or more active forms of abuse, where ‘the parents have actually been positively harmful to the children’ (YW02). Both circumstances were clearly apparent throughout the case studies. For instance, experiences of neglect, emotional abuse, parental substance misuse and ill-health and poverty connect the stories of Alis, Aron and Bryn with those of Ioan, Lewys and Morgan. Caio, Huw and Rhydian’s stories are marked by shadows of physical abuse and family violence. Absent fathers was another common theme. These speak of the absence of care, love, support, safety, security, resources and opportunities to thrive.

The young people interviewed had a similar perspective on things missing in their lives that made it hard to stay out of trouble: no support at home; no support at school; and having nothing to do.

Dylan and Gareth talk about their lack of family support: for example, Gareth’s family were ‘always happy … to send [him] to the YOT’, and his ‘mother wasn’t really much bothered’ about him (Gareth, interview). Rhydian’s experience of leaving his mother’s house at 14 and being ‘in and out of care’ (Rhydian, interview) suggested his family’s inability to provide adequate care and support for him.

119

The four young men interviewed all stated or implied that their local school failed them: ‘I couldn’t read, I couldn’t write, I couldn’t do nothing, till up to the age of like fifteen, I was illiterate’ (Elis). School was in many ways an absence in their lives in that their educational needs were not met: for instance, Dylan needed encouragement, support and ‘time to clear my head’; Gareth needed ‘someone one-on-one with me’; these needs were met instead by the YOT.

The absence of positive social activities in their area meant ‘we had nothing to do’ (Gareth), ‘nothing at all’ (Dylan). Having nothing to do, together with an absence of non-offending peers, made it hard to stay out of trouble: it was ‘the boys [they] bothered with’ (Rhydian, Elis). Boredom and older peers made getting into trouble seem fun and exciting and provided the adventure and ‘buzz’ they were otherwise missing.

Accumulated disadvantage These absences, omissions and things missing in their lives make these young people vulnerable to a whole range of additional problems. Absences accumulate as layers of disadvantage through repetition, within communities and across generations of families, as we see in Alis, Aron and Bryn’s circumstances, or Ioan and Lewys’s situations. For many young people, such as brothers Ioan and Lewys (see 6.2.4), learning difficulties and behavioural problems that result from earlier (emotional and material) absences in their lives can disrupt educational continuity and stability and make school unsustainable. Exclusion from school further alienates children from positive relationships including non-offending peers. Sustained systemic involvement ‒ such as with social services ‒ compounds and exacerbates their sense of being outside and ‘other’ than the ‘mainstream’ community with which they are expected to engage and whose rules they are expected to observe. Crises and ruptures in continuity of care and support, particularly for looked after children, create further disruption and chaos in their lives. For young people such as Bryn (see 6.2.1) this chaos and disruption manifests in ‘prolific offending’. For example, ‘B50’, a young man whose ‘prolific’ offending was associated almost exclusively with his living in a ‘resi unit’ for five years from the age of 12, and which ceased once he left residential care at the age of 17 (B50, case file analysis).

As well as aspects of systemic involvement (such as with school and social services) working to exacerbate (rather than alleviate) immediate problems in children’s lives, the data suggest that accumulated disadvantage can damage a young person’s psychological wellbeing in the long term. This risk arises when a young person’s physical, psychological and emotional needs are complex and deep-seated and remain largely unmet by the educational and support services available to them. Caio’s story (see 6.2.2) illustrates how this can happen. Understanding young people’s lives and needs in terms of absences and accumulated disadvantage highlights the need for support services to bring into young people’s lives the things they need to thrive: stable trusting relationships, hope, confidence, access to resources and opportunities to succeed.

Young people’s ‘struggle with themselves’ (YW10) – identity The way young people were perceived by others in the community and how they perceived themselves were seen as critical aspects of their offending behaviour. This theme came out of the case studies and interviews with workers and the young men, and it reflects the broader literature on labelling and the effects of social reactions on behaviour and social identity (see 3.1.1), as well as literature on young people’s identity development (see 3.2.4).

120

The ‘image that others have’ (YW18) of young people within their community can aggravate or intensify their offending behaviour. The young men interviewed explained how they were feared and ostracised by their community. One of their workers described how the seriousness and scale of their offending meant that ‘they were getting shunned out there’ (YW18). The long-term effect was the erosion of trust, as ‘Elis’ explained: ‘people judge you on what you’ve done … they’re like, ‘oh you’ve done that and that – he’s no good to me, I can’t use him’.’ This shapes a young person’s social identity, which is emerging and in flux during adolescence, in that it ‘makes a person feel worthless’ (Elis, interview). The bias of agencies and services who refuse to accept young people ‘because of their offending’ (YW18), or who enforce strict criteria that tended to exclude young people who ‘don’t quite fit’ (YW12) reinforces young people’s sense of worthlessness. The result is a looping, iterative perception of failure and marginalisation from mainstream community resources (people and services). This finding fits with literature on identity formation that suggests young people’s identities are constructed through both individual experiences and perceptions and others’ views and beliefs about them as people (Jenkins 2004; Wickenden 2011; see 3.2.4).

For the young people interviewed, about whom YW18 also provided key insights, their exclusion from the mainstream community meant ‘they had to stick together’ (YW18). Offending together was a means to an identity, a sense of being someone and of fitting in with a group that accepted them. A sense of belonging and loyalty bound these young men:

We all bounced off one another … like once he’s gonna do something, you’re always, you’ve got his back, you’re with him a hundred percent. (Elis)

The misuse of alcohol and substances such as Valium (Elis) amplified the boys’ out-of-control behaviour. And a competitive aspect to their offending became a form of one-upmanship:

If he has done something and been arrested I will get arrested with him next time. That’s the reason we’d do it. (Gareth)

‘We terrorised our streets’, says Gareth, hinting at the boys’ proprietorial sense of power and fearlessness. This took on its own momentum as a force driving the group’s behaviour:

[We] thought we was invincible – just robbing things, showing off, I was just there with the boys, just getting dragged into it. (Rhydian)

Simultaneously, however, it was reinforcing community perceptions about the group, and cementing their alienation from the community (recalling social control theory about the breakdown of the ties that bind us to society, see 3.1.2), as this way of thinking suggests:

‘Well f**k it, I’m gonna rob this c**t tonight’ – sorry for my language – but that’s the way they’re thinking (Elis).

Though explored in detail in the context of these particular young men’s experience, this was a wider phenomenon noted across the sample. Case notes in one young man’s electronic file, for instance, suggest that his behaviour was driven by a need ‘to be one of the boys’ (B34, Asset):

[B34 was] likely to involve himself in offending behaviour in the future just to ‘fit in’ with the boys and gain acceptance (B34, Asset).

121

So, at that same time that many young people experienced various forms of exclusion within their community, they were searching for acceptance, yearning to belong, desperate to ‘fit in’. This twin phenomenon – social exclusion and social identity ‒ was seen to run through every young person’s story and account of their ‘prolific’ offending. It would appear, then, that understanding and addressing these issues and the processes that shape and bring them about is the key to working effectively to interrupt, reduce and prevent young people’s ‘prolific offending’.

7.2.2 Obstacles to effective work with young people

As well as the issues of social exclusion and young people’s identity development, the data revealed several obstacles to effective work with this group. These obstacles took the form of criminal justice responses to young people’s behaviour and agencies failing to work effectively to meet young people’s needs, and included the following:

 Inconsistency of criminal justice system responses: youth courts’ failure to follow through with ‘threats’ of custody, for instance, was seen as a failure to provide and communicate clear and consistent boundaries and expectations about actions and consequences to young people. This represents the antithesis of ‘pro-social modelling’ (see 3.1.3 and 5.5).

 The use of ASBOs: Resulted in the criminalisation of young people for their low-level ‘anti- social’ behaviour (e.g. see 6.2.1 ‘Alis’, 6.2.5 ‘Morgan’, and 6.2.6 ‘Rhydian’). They were also seen to punish and criminalise poverty, given that these children’s circumstances were most often marked by socio-economic disadvantage, dysfunction and deprivation.

 The use of custody: While for some young people, a custodial sentence served as a deterrent for further offending, for most others it was seen to exaggerate or reinforce their offending identity and thereby had no deterrent effect whatsoever. In such cases, it could lead to young people’s reoffending and entrenchment in the justice system. This was also the case if custody was used inappropriately, such as for a short period (a four month DTO, for instance) rather than a longer supervised order in the community. A four-month DTO meant two months in custody and two months of YOT supervision. Short custodial sentences were seen as disruptive and unhelpful and more usefully replaced by wholly community options that could enable constructive work through relationship-building.

 Service agencies excluding or ‘failing’ young people: Training organisations, for example, that workers (such as YW18) had to negotiate with and vigorously advocate on the young people’s behalf to overcome bias, prejudice or indifference; or the accommodation providers with criteria that some young people ‘don’t quite fit’ (YW12).

 Young people’s transition from the YOT to adult probation: A time of intense vulnerability that, without effective partnership work to support the young person, could result in (at least a period of) increased offending (‘Elis’ for example, see 6.3.2).

Risk and vulnerability Part of transition from the youth to the adult justice system involved the changing role of a young person in relation to their workers and the ‘system’. At the time these young people were identified as ‘prolific’, in 2009-10, the significance of maturity was less well understood and institutionalised support for youth-to-adult transitions was yet to emerge (see Brewster 2015). Young people, having turned 18, ‘were expected to be responsible’ (Gareth, interview) and to

122

understand the consequences of their actions. The change in language used and the shift in expectations (of the YOT compared to adult probation) reflected the difference between a young person being seen as a ‘vulnerable’ child and a ‘risky’ young adult. But the construction of a young person in terms of vulnerability or risk seemed to vary according to different assessments, at different times, and in the context of different behaviours. A tension emerged, both in the worker’s accounts and the case file analysis, between the need to 1) support slow change- processes over time and 2) manage young people’s risk of reoffending.

Even though the young men interviewed valued the work of the YOT immeasurably, some of the case files analysed suggested a predominantly risk-oriented assessment style that shaped the way the young people were constructed (as Caio’s story clearly illustrates, see 6.2.2). One senior practitioner, reflecting on the Asset, describes it as ‘massively out of date’:

It’s a deficit based criminal check-list really …. I like to think we try not to do that, but that’s what the form wants, it’s very negative and critical. (YW08)

This recalls Aron’s worker (see 6.2.1) seemingly downplaying his significant strengths to highlight his ‘risk of recidivism’:

This example seems to clearly illustrate the perception (of YW08, expressed above) that ‘that’s what the form wants’ (YW08), the effect of which is to side-line young people’s potential for change and ongoing need for support. An assessment tool too narrowly focused on risk made it hard for some workers to make clear that young people, such as Caio, may be equally and simultaneously risky and vulnerable. YW10 suggested this can be a matter of time and ‘timing’, too, recalling her case of a boy whose childhood was shaped by family violence:

This kid … at a young age, was seen as being vulnerable. Then he came to me … and then I saw the risk angle because then his offence … was against his ex-partner, he’d beaten her up quite badly and there were huge control issues, just absolutely massive. … At that age he was vulnerable and it was all about his vulnerability, but as he got older it became about his risk because he then morphed into what his dad was. (YW10)

Perhaps too great an emphasis on risk, at the expense of perceiving and responding to vulnerability, may actually weight against the desire and possibility for young people to change. ‘Timing’ (YW10) may be about responding earlier to children’s vulnerability instead of focusing too narrowly on risk; maximising instead of missing opportunities for effective intervention and change; perceiving possibilities for ‘success’ rather than embedding and reinforcing experiences of ‘failure’ (as Caio’s story showed, at 6.2.2).

Failure and success For young people to achieve ‘success’ they require positive feedback and encouragement. The example of Aron’s perceived ‘failure’ overshadowing his ‘successes’ highlights the danger of constructing young people’s narrative primarily in terms of risk. Caio’s dual construction as a risky, violent young man, and a vulnerable child, illustrates another way in which young people’s ‘failure’ can be ascribed and perpetuated. This recalls YW08’s warning:

123

If we are not careful there is a danger with these things that we reinforce the negative, we go on and on about the offence, and we are reinforcing this criminal persona. (YW08)

To bring about success, the young people’s stories imply that adults supporting them must see success and make that the focus of work, rather than reinforcing perceptions of their failure. As Gareth’s experience suggests: ‘if you were doing well they would let you know you were doing well’, thereby, ‘making you feel rewarded, and that’s all you need to do really isn’t it?’ Key to supporting young people’s transitions, then, appears to be rewarding their successes, giving them confidence, and thereby creating building blocks for their future lives. 7.3 Helping young people stay out of trouble, for good

The following section sums up the things that helped reduce young people’s offending and the things that characterise effective work by YOTs and other agencies in supporting young people to move away from crime. These things came out of reoffending data, interviews with YOT workers and managers, the nine case studies, and the young men I interviewed who gave insight into the things that helped them to stay out of trouble when they were younger and now looking back on their younger selves.

7.3.1 Young people and change

Stability – a ‘home’ Certain factors, influences and events appeared to stabilise young people’s behaviour and create spaces between their offending. These included stable accommodation − a place where young people felt safe and secure and contained. As B50’s experience (his offending was largely associated with being in ‘resi’ care) suggests however, residential care did not necessarily provide this sense of safety or of a ‘home’. Some young people were able to find a sense of safety and stability as ‘looked after children’, but not all (as earlier discussion suggests, see 6.5.3).

Educational continuity and stability was another factor seen to reduce young people’s offending and allow them to focus on and engage in learning, for example:

As Gareth implies, this opportunity to learn in the small, focused setting that the YOT provided on a Sunday morning gave him structure, purpose, belonging and a growing sense of achievement. He suggests that he felt ‘at home’ at the YOT (safe, secure, supported) when he says ‘I had my own cereal and everything’; it was familiar and became part of his routine. He hints at the importance of this for his emerging sense of self and belief in his ability to change when he says ‘I was lost without it’, thus implying that this stability was not available to him anywhere else in the community (and certainly not ‘at home’ with his own family). The stability of a ‘home’ could thus be found in different places, for different young people.

124

Maturing, growing up, time Some young people were able to reduce their offending significantly through a natural process of maturing or growing up. Many seemed to ‘wake up’ and decide they no longer wanted to continue on the same track and actively sought ways to avoid crime and sustain a non-offending lifestyle. For Gareth (according to YW18) and Alis, for instance, the experience of being locked up formed their decision that they never wanted to return to custody. For some of the boys, in the interviews and case studies, their decisions to change were associated with having a girlfriend, getting a job, becoming a father. For these emerging young adults, they suddenly had a sense of having ‘something to lose’ (Bryn, Asset), whereas before they had little or nothing to lose by continuing to get in trouble or to take risks with friends, for instance. For other young people, it was simply that they reached an age where they could take responsibility for themselves and move away from environments they found difficult or impossible to function in; Alis or ‘B50’, for example.

This process of growing up or maturing implies that young people’s desire to change and to take control over their future was indeed a matter of readiness, as the literature around motivation suggests (see 3.2.1). That is, young people’s intention (desire to change) and agency (decision to change) could only manifest when other factors and conditions allowed – be it maturity (in terms of age and opportunity to exert power in decision-making) or time more generally (time to gather and learn from experience). As Elis reflects: ‘I didn’t realise what I were doing when I was younger… [I was] just stupid is all, wrecking my life’ (Elis, interview). He also supports Pawson’s (2004) ‘snakes and ladders’ metaphor, that moving towards change is not a linear process, but a recursive, repetitive, looping one; a series of gradually expanding ‘gaps’:

[T]he first time I went to jail I went for four months, but there was like a gap of say eleven months, then I went back to jail for like eight months, then there’d be another gap for like a year, so every time I was making progress, even though I was going back to jail, and I was getting longer sentences … the gaps was pushing... (Elis, interview).

Each gap between offending is a step in a young person’s shift in identity, and another step towards moving away from offending. Critically, though, the data shows the need for support during this time of transition to adulthood and new emerging identity.

Supporting shifts in identity The data reveals entrenched structural and systemic problems that made it hard for so many of the young people to stay out of trouble in their communities across Wales. According to the young men I interviewed, a common experience for these young people was feeling ‘worthless’ (Elis) and perceiving that other people viewed them thus: ‘he’s a criminal, he lives on the streets and he robs people’ (Elis). The findings that so many of these young people managed to find a way out of offending, however, gives cause for hope and encouragement and the possibility that these young people’s offending trajectories and identities are not fixed, stable or inexorable but are fluid, changeable and shifting. Over half of the young people (of the 46 for whom the number of re- offences was available) had reduced the frequency of their reoffending. This suggests that they were moving towards a different identity to that associated with prolific offending.

Recalling notions of a ‘redemptive script’, new narrative (Maruna 2001) or a ‘replacement self’ of Giordano et al (2002), the young people who managed to move away from offending thus seemed to respond to the opportunity for an identity-shift, to develop a new sense of who they were: no longer ‘worthless’ or ‘a criminal’ (Elis); instead becoming a partner, a parent, a learner, an

125

employee, a job-seeker, a gym member, or simply ‘a nice boy … a good boy’ (Elis), for instance. These opportunities arose through relationships, experiences and changes in social settings, such as Alis’s leaving her neighbourhood or ‘B50’ leaving residential care. These examples highlight the need for workers to support and facilitate young people’s access to opportunities, to advocate on their behalf, to thus demonstrate belief in their capacity for change and support the process of transition. This means looking for opportunities as they arise, and being there when they are presented.

The example of ‘Joe’, the ‘prolific car thief’ (YM04, see box 5.1), illustrates the need for professionals in young people’s lives to seek opportunities to address issues of systemic bias or structural injustice, which may otherwise keep the young person locked into an offending identity. Whereas a purely risk-focused approach might only see the young person’s risk of reoffending, and concentrate efforts on behaviour change, an identity-focused approach takes into account the young person’s social context and wider issues of access and opportunity. YM04’s intervening with the court on ‘Joe’s’ behalf – risking her professional reputation – helped him through a difficult transition between being ‘so well-known’ as an ‘offender’ and becoming a partner to his girlfriend and father to his child. This shift in identity is a precarious, fragile state that requires understanding and consistent support. From this perspective, young people’s move away from crime (what some term desistance) may be more usefully conceived in terms of transitions to a pro-social life, a life offering positive opportunities and identities. The focus of youth justice work then becomes the process – the ups and downs or complex transitions to a pro- social life − rather than the destination, and supporting young people throughout that process of transition.

7.3.2 Effective YOT work

The most effective work with young people, in terms of things YOTs did that helped reduce the severity or frequency of young people’s offending, incorporated the following elements:

Relationship – trust, belief, respect, deep understanding The findings support the literature that shows trusting respectful relationships to be at the heart of effective work with young people (McNeill et al 2005; Farrow et al 2007; Drake et al 2014). The case worker plays a pivotal role in building trust with their young client which can become a bridge to other trusting relationships. This bridging capital can enable the shift in identity and transition from one social setting to another (Barry 2007, 2015). Where young people are stuck in a strong group identity related to offending ‒ such as the young men interviewed ‒ they illustrate the ‘paradox of networks’, meaning they have plenty of ‘bonding capital’ within their group but lack ‘bridging capital’ to be able to move beyond that group identity (MacDonald and Marsh 2005, in Barry 2007: 10). Alis and Aron and Bryn, for instance, felt unable to escape the strong family bonds that tied them to their offending identity until they could find a bridge via alternative social settings, relationships and sources of support: for Alis this meant moving away from the town; for Aron it was his baby boy; for Bryn it was going to college and making new friends.

The data show that, for these young people, effective work hinges on being able to establish trusting relationships which focus not only on individual strengths but on ‘network strengths’ (Hill 1999: 140). Deep understanding of young people’s social networks is required to be able to identify strengths and see opportunities to build on capacities. Effective work thus takes time:

126

time to build relationships; time to listen; time to get to know the young person and understand what is going on in their lives; time to discover what will help them develop a lasting positive identity. Listening also demands respect and belief: respect for the young person’s inherent value as a human being; and belief that, despite the absence in their lives, they can change and grow.

Boundaries – being consistent, clear, flexible Boundaries function not only to physically contain young people, but to provide them with a sense of safety and security, a consistent structure, a framework of support. Effective boundaries are those that are communicated clearly, modelled explicitly, and reinforced consistently. Within such a framework, trusting relationships can be built. Boundaries and trust are thus inextricably linked in the following ways, shown in Figure 29 below:

Figure 29 Elements of effective work with young people

Clear expectations about respectful Motivation behaviour Involving to engage young people, with and giving them a meet voice, a sense expectations of ownership

Engenders Trust that young young people person's trust can and will in adult learn through worker Consistent yet experience flexible support (i.e. pick them up when they fall over)

Communicating clear expectations about the sort of respectful behaviour that is expected and that will be modelled (towards oneself and others) is the starting point for establishing boundaries. Involving young people in what these boundaries mean for working together is the important next step, as discussed below. There is an inherent flexibility in these boundaries, however, that requires workers to trust that young people can and will (eventually) learn from experience. Elis (see 6.3.2) implies this trust when he talks about the gap between the time a young person spends with their worker and time spent alone or with friends, and that ‘they need to give you a gap’:

127

Reinforcing the boundaries around a young person – the kind that provide them with safety and security and stability ‒ requires workers to be there to pick up young people when they fall over, which the data show is inevitable. The young men interviewed described their experience of such support:

Support isn't a good enough word to be honest with you, they [the YOT workers] went way further than they should have... (Dylan)

Even if it was out of hours and we needed a chat we would have their numbers, we could phone them in the middle of the night and they would chat to us. (Gareth)

Only by demonstrating this kind of unconditional support ‒ within the boundaries originally established47 ‒ will young people start to see, experience and believe the adult worker’s trust and belief in them. This can, in turn, engender the young person’s trust and belief in the worker. This is what ‘Ann’ (YM04) identified as the key to ‘Joe’s’ ability to move away from his former identity as a ‘prolific car thief’ (see Box 5.1). This trust and belief can inspire a young person’s hope and confidence that they can change, which generates motivation to engage, with the worker, in working towards change.

Involving young people Another key element to emerge out of the findings about effective YOT work is the importance of involving young people in the work being done with them. Young people will only ‘buy into’ or engage in work that they accept as legitimate, reasonable and fair, as the literature suggests (Hill 1999; Hine 2004; Case and Haines 2014a, 2014b). An example is giving young people ‘ownership of the plan, working with them’ (YW11), rather than imposing plans or interventions upon them. As we saw in Caio’s story (see 6.2.2), the intervention in his life came too late for him, and did not seem to reflect what may have been important to him at that time: having a sense of control or power over the things that happened to him. Giving young people a voice ‒ a say ‒ in their lives reflect the critical aspect of respect, highlighted above. Without modelling respect for young people’s views and inherent human value, how can they be expected to respect the boundaries imposed upon them?

Involving young people means spending time to get to know them and ‘what make them tick’ (as Elis described, see 6.3.2). The link between involving young people and building a trusting relationship is manifest. The way to build trust is to understand the best way of working with a particular young person, in the context of their life and their reality and according to their strengths. Rather than an authoritative approach that insists ‘they’ve got to do it’ (YW18), this means taking a more collaborative approach and understanding that, perhaps, ‘they can’t do it that way. We need to address this before we can work on that’ (YW18). The result, as YW18 found in her work with young people, is that ‘they accept that’ (YW18). This finding has interesting implications for the point made in the literature about compulsory versus voluntary ‘engagement’ (Rowe and Soppitt 2014). As other researchers suggest (MacCallum et al 2005; Mason and Prior 2008; see 3.2.1), a collaborative mentoring-style approach that focuses on confidence-building seems most likely to engender young people’s motivation to change; not because they are forced

47 This example is not prescriptive, but merely illustrative. This YOT worker may have demonstrated support beyond what other workers might deem feasible. Certainly individual workers, led by their managers and supported by the culture of their organisation, will establish their own boundaries with the young people they work with.

128

to, but because they are invited, inspired and enabled to change. Involving young people thus means sparking their desire, hope and confidence in the possibility that they can change.

Workers’ persistence As Figure 29 above shows, consistent flexible support that demonstrates belief in a young person can allow trust to slowly build. This requires persistence, even in the face of their persistent mistakes:

You make so many significant steps forward but overnight you’ll end up back and they keep coming back. You’ve got to be persistent with them, you’ve got to. (YW18)

In addition to being there to pick them up when young people fall over, effectively demonstrating consistent support requires that workers not take young people’s behaviour personally. As this example illustrates, workers modelling an ethos of ‘not-taking-it-personally’ helps to build trust:

[One lad] actually threatened me, abusive, so I took the matter to court. He came to me the next day and cried his eyes out, he was so sorry for what he did. … I said to him, ‘I’m not going to walk away from you, you’ve done this but I still want to work with you’. The relationship just grew then. I think he was expecting me to say I’m not going to work with you anymore. But I mean it’s what you do, you can’t expect them to be nice and want to go to you all the time. (YW18)

Persistence also involves encouragement, even when there seems very little to work with. YW18, for instance, describes the way she would encourage her young people:

‘Come on, keep it up now, keep it up’ … You’ve got to be persistent with them, you’ve got to ... I used to go ‘oh my God, [boy’s name] it is four months now, come on now, we can do this now’.

The skill of effective workers in this respect hinges on being able to see the young person in terms of their potential for growth, rather than their challenging, difficult or offending behaviour. This requires the ability ‒ even when young people are ‘horrible’ and ‘you never want to see them again’ (YW02), and even at those times ‘when it’s difficult to be principled and boundaried and clear and not shout and not get into that pattern of behaviour that they’re really used to’ (YW02) ‒ even then, to believe in their human capacity to grow and change. This ability, shored up by persistence, provides the circuit-breaker to interrupt those very patterns that manifest in young people’s prolific offending.

Focusing on the ‘gaps’ between offending Finding the way to interrupt young people’s ‘prolific’ patterns is all about working with the spaces between their offending. A practical, positive approach to young people’s offending and supporting their transitions to a pro-social life thus focuses less on the offending and more on the ‘gaps’ in between:

With a lot of kids there will be big gaps in their offending sometimes, and I think we should look more perhaps at that as well, what they have done right, what's kept them away from this. (YW08)

As ‘Elis’ explains:

129

[T]he first time I went to jail I went for four months, but there was like a gap of say eleven months, then I went back to jail for like eight months, then there’d be another gap for like a year, so every time I was making progress, even though I was going back to jail … because [of what] I was doing, the gaps was pushing...

For ‘Elis’, ‘pushing the gaps’ allowed him to gradually build confidence that he could be a ‘non- offending person’; around this emerging identity he could start to construct a new sense of himself. Not necessarily a conscious process, this ‘identity work’ (Bottrell 2007) evokes the ‘redemptive script’ (Maruna 2001) or ‘replacement self’ (Giordano et al 2002) that features in the desistance literature. In the context of young people’s transitions, this becomes less an individual project of the self and more the focus of support, motivation and encouragement, as YW18’s comments above show.

Focusing on ‘the gaps’ or the transitions to a pro-social life involves a shift in perspective: seeing the young person in terms of their non-offending. This shift is paradigmatic. It departs from a risk- focused perspective that keeps the ‘risk of reoffending’ in the foreground. It relocates the young person to the centre of the narrative, to be the focus of youth justice work rather than focusing on a remote aspiration or elusive destination of stopping offending. It is also more than recognised in the desistance literature: it is not merely a child who does not offend, it is a child with other, more positive, life chances – a different life. This is not to discount the seriousness of the offending, as YW08 stresses:

…obviously not to ignore the offence, or to challenge them about the victims, but I think we try and look at the resilient strength factors…

Instead, emphasising ‘the positive factors’ to the young person:

‘You could have committed more serious offences, but you haven't. You could be in a whole lot more trouble, so obviously something stopped you’ (YW08).

This approach is inherently positive and growth-oriented, and based on the belief in every person’s capacity to change.

(Image cropped from ‘Hope’ by Stu, courtesy of Flickr CC BY-SA 2.0. Image URL: https://flic.kr/p/cyyvd9)

130

8. Conclusions and recommendations

This report presents the findings of a year-long project (Jan 2015-Jan 2016), which returned to earlier work by the YJB Cymru (2012) that profiled a group of 117 young people identified as ‘prolific’ in their offending. In following up these young people YOT workers and managers were interviewed and 82 case files were analysed, across eight YOTs. Reoffending data were gathered on as many of the young people as possible, and in-depth case studies delved into the detail of nine of the young people’s lives: ‘Alis’, ‘Aron’ and ‘Bryn’, who were all part of a ‘pro-criminal family’ (according to Bryn’s Asset record); ‘Caio’, a ‘monster on paper’ (in the words of one worker at YOT7); and five other ‘lads’ – ‘Huw’, ‘Ioan’ and his brother ‘Lewys’, ‘Morgan’ and ‘Rhydian’– whose early lives were plagued by poverty, family dysfunction and/or violence. In addition, interviews with Rhydian and three others now in their early twenties – ‘Elis’, ‘Dylan’ and ‘Gareth’ – provided rich insights into the things that help young people move away from criminal involvement and the things that make it hard to stay out of trouble. Some conclusions are drawn here that highlight the key findings, sum up the implications for practice and then, acknowledging the limitations of the data, provide the basis for our final recommendations.

It is important to point out that from the time the group was identified as ‘prolific’, in 2009-10, to the time of gathering follow-up data six years later many changes had taken place. The size of the youth justice cohort across Wales had shrunk significantly – from over 7,600 young people to around 2,500. The number of young people in custody had also dropped dramatically. The concentration of young people remaining in the youth justice was notable for their increased reoffending rates and, in many cases, the increasing severity of their offending. YOTs found themselves with fewer numbers of children and young people on statutory orders, but with a markedly higher level of complexity in the needs and circumstances of those they were working with. YOT practice has developed and continues to develop in line with this recognition.

For instance, the Welsh model of Enhanced Case Management, in pilot phase at the time of the study, is a notable example of emerging practice developed to meet the needs of this more complex cohort. The shift from Asset to AssetPlus across England and Wales also represents wider acknowledgement of the importance of strengths-based approaches to youth offending. The Children First, Offenders Second principle remains embedded in Welsh YOT work and emphasises the needs, voices and involvement of young people in work with them. The findings of this study are thus as pertinent as ever in terms of reinforcing effective practice that is already being undertaken with young people, and to inspire and inform the principles and practices of more effective work where they are still developing.

In drawing our conclusions, we return to the questions that formed the basis of the research:

 How and why do young people become involved in prolific offending?  What happens to young people with histories of prolific offending as they move into adulthood?  How, if at all, do the narratives of young people involved in prolific offending vary over time? And what do these narratives reveal about the young person’s sense of themselves and their offending behaviours?  What factors in a young person’s experience are most likely to promote, foster or support their building of a positive and sustainable pro-social identity? (i.e. what happens in young people’s lives that helps to reduce their offending?)

131

 What characterises interventions that are most likely to promote, foster or support the process of developing a positive and sustainable pro-social lifestyle? (i.e. what type of work with young people helps to reduce their offending?) 8.1 Key findings

8.1.1 Young people and ‘prolific’ offending

Our findings have shown that young people’s ‘prolific’ offending is a complex phenomenon, and that to intervene effectively – that is, to reduce the volume and frequency of offending, lessen its severity and shorten its duration – requires complex responses over time. These begin by compiling a detailed picture of the nature and extent of a young person’s offending: How much trouble is a young person getting into? How often is this occurring? When and over what period? How serious is the offending and is it escalating? Gathering these ‘surface’ aspects of a young person’s behaviour, however, gives little insight into its underlying causes or the social context and conditions giving rise to the behaviour. Effective responses demand understanding of these deeper issues and the complex interaction between them, by first asking: what is going on for this young person and what is their behaviour communicating?

Different offending patterns The data show that some young people react to long-term disadvantage and underlying trauma in their lives through persistent offending, some low-level and frequent, some of which is not frequent but episodic, and some both frequent and persistent and escalating in seriousness over time. The case studies illustrated these patterns: either persistent ‘anti-social’ type offending (‘Morgan’ or ‘Rhydian’, for example), or a different pattern that starts with low-level offending and then escalates into more serious and harmful behaviours (‘Caio’ or ‘Huw’, for instance). The latter are the young people seen as most likely to become entrenched in the adult justice system, having significant health and educational needs that remained unmet, and particularly where this coincided with serious substance misuse.

The patterns of some young people’s offending could hardly be described as ‘prolific’ at all, in that it was episodic, sometimes infrequent, notwithstanding its persistence over time. For some young people, involvement in a high number of offences within a short period was their behavioural response to particular traumatic events, stressors or disruptions in their lives. ‘Alis’, for instance, was charged with nearly a hundred offences between the ages of 15 and 18, a period during which her alcohol and substance use peaked. Understanding how and why young people become involved in prolific offending, then, requires first examining the nature of their offending patterns, and getting to know what is going on in a young person’s life that may be associated with or driving their behaviour. This means looking beyond the individual to see each young person in the context of their social setting and key relationships.

Different drivers and ‘types’ of prolific offending The findings suggested different drivers for young people’s high-volume offending, whether it is sustained (i.e. persistent but not necessarily frequent) or episodic (i.e. frequent within a certain period but not necessarily persistent over a long period) (see Figure 27 below). In identifying and broadly categorising these different drivers we seek not to reduce young people to singular identities or motivations, but to flag areas for potential support or development that may not

132

register in standard risk-based assessments, and that we may not recognise without developing a deep understanding of a young person.

Figure 27 Typology of prolific offending Sustained • Being 'anti-authority': the rebel, the entrepreneur (persistent) • Being 'out of control': the pest, the resigned, the seeker

Episodic ('bursts' of • 'Every now and then' reacting to ruptures or stressors: frequent offending) in care, in crisis

Sustained patterns of high-volume offending (both more and less serious) were broadly associated with young people being: a) ‘anti authority’, that is with entrenched pro-criminal cultures, norms and values; or b) ‘out of control’, reflecting pervasive and complex underlying needs, trauma and/or emotional distress. This latter group included behaviours associated with immaturity (‘pests’ such as ‘Rhydian’), children who seem resigned to their circumstances and see no way out – ‘the kids … who really don’t seem to care what happens to them or anyone else really’ (YW08) – and those who desire and long for change (the ‘seekers’) but who are unsure how to achieve it, who seek acceptance in offending peer-groups but who – with support and encouragement – might find a ‘hook for change’ (Giordano et al. 2002) or a turning point (Sampson & Laub, 1993, 2003) to anchor their shifting trajectory. Seeing and recognising this dimension of a young person’s behaviour can help us identify effective ways to engage, motivate and support young people towards change.

Episodic patterns of high-volume offending were linked to young people ‘every now and then’ responding to crises, ruptures and difficulties in their lives. For looked after children, this was frequently associated with moving between care placements or being removed from home. Most of ‘Bryn’s’ troublesome behaviour (see 6.2.1), for example, was linked to being in care, absconding to return to his family, and offending with other young people in care. Some young people were criminalised for disruptive behaviour in residential settings, which were often seen to promote a culture of misbehaviour, and therefore contribute to the cycle of offending.

We emphasise the importance of recognising that each young person is different and has different needs, and that these change over time. But also that strengths may be found in unlikely places: for instance, young people with ‘anti-authority’ attitudes, with encouragement and support, may become valuable leaders and mentors; recognising a young person as a ‘seeker’ or an ‘entrepreneur’ allows work to focus on building, supporting and creating opportunities for their skills and desires to manifest in positive, non-offending ways. This can be a gradual process. These different dimensions help us understand young people’s offending in terms of time – that ‘growing up’ takes time – and the spaces in between their offending. These ‘gaps’ in offending need to be the focus of effective work to bring about positive change in young people’s lives as they move towards adulthood.

133

8.1.2 Moving into adulthood

To return to the reoffending data and what it shows, the young people identified as prolific in 2009-10 had been charged with a high number of offences (25 offences or more) and showed a high rate of reoffending. Generally, this group was characterised by the persistence of their offending over time: in 2015, 97% of the sample had reoffended after leaving the YOT; nine out of ten of the boys and two-thirds of the girls had an offending history of more than seven years. The average length of offending history was longer for the boys (nearly nine years) than the girls (seven and a half years). Scratching below the surface of these figures, however, reveals the extent to which the patterns in young people’s offending tended to manifest and vary according to the range of complex, chaotic and difficult life circumstances they experienced, which were often overlaid and exacerbated by the misuse of alcohol and other substances. In fact, the duration and space in between offending periods (frequency) and the harm caused by young people’s offences (severity) varied dramatically.

So while the data suggest that many of the young people involved in high-volume and persistent offending in their teenage years become entrenched in those patterns into adulthood, more importantly, many young people managed to move away from those patterns. This was associated with growing up, finding stability in relationships or work, and through this finding an identity not associated with offending and that they could sustain and be sustained by. Many workers spoke of young people who had ‘turned it around’:

…quite a few leading very successful and positive lives, it’s not all doom and gloom … I do think that the majority of young people turn it around. (YW12)

Many talked about young men and women, previously labelled ‘prolific’, who had made changes and found support to keep them going, such as YW12 and this young man:

…his girlfriend has recently had a baby, and he seems to be turning it around, he has started work. He is still on an order with us but people’s lives change… (YW12)

YW12’s example is important because it highlights the ‘snakes-and-ladders’ (Pawson, 2004) nature of the change processes; that even though this young person was ‘still on an order’, he was demonstrating significant changes that YW12 could identify as ‘successes’. Rhydian showed a similar trajectory, reducing his offending and developing a more positive sense of himself through his relationship with his girlfriend, even though he had ‘slipped up’ and returned to custody. Examples such as these show how moving towards change is not a linear process, but a recursive, repetitive, looping one; a series of gradually expanding ‘gaps’ between offending (Elis and YW08).

Many of the young people’s stories – Alis, Aron and Bryn, for instance, or Elis, Dylan and Gareth – exemplify children’s lives apparently embedded in crime and dysfunction, yet who all seemed to ‘make it’ and move away from persistent offending. The key for each of them was the desire for a different life and, notwithstanding varying levels of hope and confidence at different times, we can speculate or trace how someone believing in them (worker, teacher, partner, or child) buoyed this desire and helped translate it into positive life-steps and self-stories that could gradually replace ‘offender’ identities: student, learner or trainee, partner or ‘Dad’, job-seeker or employee, gym-member or simply being ‘a nice boy … a good boy’ (Elis).

134

YM04’s account of prolific car thief, ‘Joe’, shows the critical role of belief and advocacy (on the part of a stable adult) in shaping a young person’s trajectory. Alis’s story was one of a sustained burst of offending over a three-year period, which apparently ended abruptly when she was 18. As well as her own determination, her story suggests the importance of things coming together at the right time: the Court granting her a second chance and also, perhaps, someone believing in her and supporting her to leave the causes of her offending (her neighbourhood and her family’s terrible relations with police) behind. The difficulties piecing together young people’s trajectories from case file records and reoffending data make it impossible to know for sure without asking Alis herself. Nevertheless, Alis’s apparent ‘success’ highlights the need for adults to persist with young people, to be ready when they are ready for change.

8.1.3 Young people’s self-narratives

It was difficult to trace young people’s narratives through the case file data, since these were recorded by workers interpreting young people’s motivation and self-concept from how they presented in interviews and assessments. Such accounts do not necessarily or accurately reflect young persons’ voice or perspective. Some broad insights were available, for example in relation to children in residential care, YW10’s observation of the ‘expectation that you’re living here, that’s what you do’ reflects McAdams (1995, 2001) explanation of how young people react to their circumstances and develop an accompanying self-narrative to make sense of their situation, a ‘story to live by’. The data suggest that unless these young people’s behaviour is seen as symptomatic of these underlying difficulties, their emerging identity can become solidified around labels such as ‘risky’, ‘troublesome’ or ‘a prolific offender’, highlighting the need to intervene to disrupt rather than cement negative labelling. This labelling takes form in both self- narratives and those ascribed by professionals and ‘systems’ (youth justice, children’s services, education and training, for instance), and the wider community.

The narratives of young people themselves were gathered through the interviews with the four young men: Dylan, Elis, Gareth and Rhydian. Their stories give a sense of them having left their teenage selves firmly in the past, and a developing sense of themselves as men, fathers, partners, community members, workers and prospective employees. They gave insight into how these self- narratives had changed and developed over time. Now in their early twenties, all had created spaces in their offending and the three older boys had managed to stay out of trouble for at least a couple of years. Although Rhydian was in custody, he too had been ‘doing so well’ (YW18) in the community. These versions of their stories contrasted sharply to the narratives presented in their case files, conveyed by their workers and by the young men themselves: ‘I wasn’t a very likeable lad … I was a bit of a risk’ (Rhydian); ‘I didn’t realise what I were doing … [I was] just stupid’ (Elis). The boys talked about what used to drive them – the notoriety, the excitement, being ‘one of the boys’:

[We] thought we was invincible – just robbing things, showing off, I was just there with the boys…’ (Rhydian)

If he has done something and been arrested I will get arrested with him next time. That’s the reason we’d do it… (Gareth)

But, significantly, they were able to reflect on the process of maturing, of growing up and ‘out of crime’, and having partners and (for Dylan and Gareth) children that helped ‘sort them out’:

135

The kids and my missus have sorted me out … I think about the way I want my little girl to be brought up now, and I would never want my little girl to turn out the way I did. (Dylan)

I think with me it is valuing the person you want to be … how you actually picture yourself, and what you want to be as well. (Gareth)

They also spoke of the gradual nature of the change process, of slowly building trust and a positive identity, having been so feared and demonised by others in the community:

There was a lot of changing to do, and if you change there are still people around you, and the things that people think of you, and it takes a long time to change. (Gareth)

Each of them identified the support and assistance of the YOT, particularly the persistence and belief of the workers in them, as critical to helping them move away from their offending. And, in supporting their learning and growth, helping them to develop a more positive sense of themselves:

I want respect now, I want to be in with a social group … I want people to say like, ‘he’s a nice boy’ … I want to have a social standing. (Elis)

Identifying young people’s underlying desires, harnessing and building these into strengths and sustainable self-stories, is key to supporting young people’s transitions to more positive lives.

8.1.4 What happens in young people’s lives?

All the case file, interview and reoffending data revealed things that happened in the lives of young people, which helped to steer them away from offending peers, habits or lifestyles: finding stability; maturing, growing up; and having opportunities to develop a more positive identity. As well as things that helped them stay out of trouble, however, there seemed to be many more things that made it difficult for them to avoid trouble: significant ‘absences’ in their lives (YW02, interview); accumulated disadvantage; and self-reinforcing negative identity development. The ‘absences’ include absent or inadequate parents (particularly fathers), schooling, health care, or positive role models, for instance, as well as less tangible ingredients of social and economic ‘success’: love, care, safety, support, encouragement and opportunities to flourish and excel. The young men interviewed confirmed these absences: no support at home or at school, and a lack of pro-social resources or opportunities.

Young people’s lives are characterised by transitions: from childhood to adolescence; from teenage years to young adulthood, through different stages of development and gradual maturity into adulthood ‘proper’. Navigating these transitions becomes particularly difficult when the critical ingredients required for a child to thrive – physically, psychologically, socially and emotionally – are missing. And more so when harms and abuses in the form of violence or neglect are added to the mix. Workers interviewed highlighted the normal aspects of teenage behaviours associated with ‘boundary pushing, … growth and development into the world and adventuring’ (YW02), yet also how these can become problematic when combined with the experience of multiple and complex disadvantage.

Disadvantage accumulates within families, communities and across generations, shadowing young people’s lives, stymying their development and blocking opportunities for growth. Poverty, ill-health, substance misuse, educational disadvantage and exclusion, characterising the

136

experience of many young people in the study, is shown to have significant impact – in the short and long-term – on children’s inclusion and wellbeing (see 7.2.1 in previous chapter). Caio’s story (se 6.2.2) is illustrative of complex and deep-seated problems arising when a child’s physical, psychological and emotional needs remain unmet. It also highlights the need for effective support, at the right time, to bring into children’s lives the things they need to thrive: stable trusting relationships, access to resources and opportunities to succeed.

Clearly, the emergence of social identity is most pronounced during the transition from childhood to adulthood, and young people’s ‘struggle with themselves’ (YW10) can shape their behaviours, often in ways that they are at a loss to explain. The reactions of others in the community to persistent offending can aggravate this behaviour in a process of stigmatisation that becomes part of a classic ‘self-fulfilling prophesy’ (Becker, 1963). The erosion of trust within communities or housing estates, when directed at particular families and groups, feeds into young people’s sense of self and intensifies their perception of failure and worthlessness, which, in turn, can intensify their experience of marginalisation and exclusion. Elis, Rhydian, Dylan and Gareth, and YW18 (who worked with them) explained this experience, giving insight into how social reaction shapes the emerging identity of young people in formative ways (see 3.2.4). This points to the importance of workers advocating on young people’s behalf to create and support opportunities for positive identity development.

Many workers highlighted that interactions with other services and agencies often created obstacles to effective work with young people, particularly when young people were defined in terms of having ‘failed’ according to eligibility or compliance criteria that they were not able to meet. As well as this form of systemic exclusion, other structural obstacles made it hard for some young people to stay out of trouble. The use of ASBO’s and the criminalisation of low-level ‘anti- social behaviour’ is a stark example, as the stories of Alis, Morgan and Rhydian show.

8.1.5 What characterises effective work with young people?

The data revealed key aspects of the type of work by YOTs and other agencies that was effective in disrupting prolific patterns of offending and in supporting young people – often with multiple and complex needs – to move away from crime-conducive relationships or situations. This work demands a flexible, strengths-based approach, based on stable and respectful relationships and a deep understanding of the young person’s needs, hopes, desires, strengths and interests. To effectively engage a young person, and to be able to fully and holistically assess their human needs – not just their ‘offending-related’ or ‘criminogenic needs’ – a critical aspect is to involve young people, to give them a say in the work being done with them. The main elements of this way of working are outlined here and summed up in Figure 29, below.

A flexible strengths-based approach According to the data, the most effective way of working with a young person involved in prolific offending is a flexible strengths-based approach that emphasises these key elements:

 Relationship based on trust, belief and respect;  Boundaries that are clear, consistent and flexible;  Involving young people in the ‘work’ with them;  Persisting with young people in the face of their persistence; and  Focusing on ‘gaps’ between offending and building on these ‘successes’.

137

This work needs to be based on a deep understanding of the young person’s social context and the particular dimensions and underlying drivers of their offending behaviour. Workers and the young men interviewed clearly indicated the importance of building trusting relationships, encouraging the best in young people, and not giving up – even when they show their worst behaviour – ‘constantly starting again with them’ (YW18). This persistence demands creativity and flexibility; rather than sticking to worksheets or ‘programme manuals’, for instance, YM04 urges workers to:

Take a child for a game of pool … go for a walk on the beach … put that down as ‘building a relationship’ because one of the most important things you will do with that young person is to gain their trust… (YM04)

This approach to building a worker-child relationship is shown to be the most effective way to engage a young person and, through that relationship, to demonstrate belief in their ability to change, to motivate them to want to work towards positive goals and, ultimately to support them to achieve them.

Figure 29 Elements of effective work with young people

Clear expectations about respectful Motivation behaviour Involving to engage young people, with and giving them a meet voice, a sense expectations of ownership

Engenders Trust that young young people person's trust can and will in adult learn through worker Consistent yet experience flexible support (i.e. pick them up when they fall over)

Holistic assessment, avoiding a narrow focus on ‘risk’ Some workers perceived that, because the youth justice system is oriented towards seeing young people in terms of their offending behaviour, there was a tendency to emphasise failures or deficits, rather than strengths or possibilities:

If we are not careful there is a danger with these things that we reinforce the negative, we go on and on about the offence, and we are reinforcing this criminal persona. (YW08)

138

This underscores the importance of an explicit strengths-based focus. Many workers interviewed described how they worked to help young people develop more positive pro-social identities and connections, alongside assessing and managing their risk of reoffending. This meant they focused on young people’s strengths, ‘the positive factors’ (YW08), taking ‘small gradual steps’ (YW18), and seeing ‘success’ in terms of small achievements and subtle changes.

Effective work with young people relies on effective engagement – meeting young people on their terms, with clear boundaries and expectations – which, according to the effective intervention literature, begins with effective assessment (Mason & Prior, 2008). Yet assessment that is too narrowly focused on risk can limit the effectiveness of interventions with young people. Caio’s story is particularly illustrative of how youth justice workers can ‘create monsters on paper’48 by assembling predominantly risk-focused information about young people. Holistic assessment, in contrast, takes into account young people’s interests, strengths, desires, hopes and aspirations (Case and Haines 2014a; Farrow et al. 2007). It also depends, critically, on the worker’s ability to identify what might be of interest and relevance to a young person (Mason and Prior 2008), which demands a flexible, creative and child-focused approach. This point highlights that – just as change is a gradual, non-linear process – so too is the chicken-and-egg process of effectively engaging a young person and assessing their needs in a way that is comprehensive and thorough.

The findings from case file analysis and interviews with workers and young people provide many examples of the significance of motivation, engagement, relationship and identity (that we explored in Chapter Three). Rather than discrete factors to be seen in isolation, however, these are shown to be interconnected elements of young people’s social ecology, within which their offending may arise and subside. We see this ebb and flow as part of young people’s transition to adulthood and the critical context within which responses to young people’s problematic behaviour must be embedded.

Different types, different needs Understanding the social and relational context of young people’s attitudes and behaviours starts with the recognition of difference: young people are not all the same, nor are the underlying causes of their offending. The different patterns, drivers and types of ‘prolific’ offending are discussed above (at 8.1.1). The typology offered here may provide a guide to understanding some of these dimensions and drivers. However, there are ‘no hard and fast rules’ (YW10); every young person is different, and their needs and circumstances must be understood in their individual context. What follows, then, is a starting point for thinking about different ways of working with young people by identifying and emphasising skills and strategies that may be relevant for different ‘types’, such as:

 The rebel – generative work focused on other young people, positive development of leadership skills/qualities/strengths  The entrepreneur – focus on the translation of skills, identifying motive/ incentive  The resigned – emphasis on hope by building stable, trusting relationships  The seeker – advocacy-based work, creating/negotiating opportunities, access, and supporting continuity  The pest – work focused on boundaries and help/support to adhere to boundaries, understanding and meeting unmet educational, health and welfare needs.

48 This quote came not from interview data but through informal conversation with workers at YOT7 (see Caio’s case study).

139

 Every now and then (including ‘looked after’ children and those in crisis or transition) – focus on meeting need for stability and consistency; support transitions by strengthening relationships (via service partnerships) around the young person.

These approaches need not be mutually exclusive. Where children are seen to have different needs at different times, understanding and meeting these needs should always be the first priority. Recognising young people’s capacity and readiness for change, and acknowledging and supporting their transitions towards a more positive future, must be the overarching goal.

Voice, giving young people a say Different workers have different approaches, but the data suggest that a strictly authoritative approach may be less effective than tailoring work to the needs and readiness of the young people. This requires understanding each young person’s individual circumstances and realities, but also giving ‘them ownership of the plan, working with them’ (YW11), ‘involving them in everything’, as YW18 explains: ‘They’ve got to be a big part of their order – it’s their order.’

One of the workers interviewed expressed misgivings over ‘the prioritisation of work’ (YW17) by YOTs, emphasising the need to give young people ‘a voice in it as well’, so that workers are guided by young people in the work they do together. From YW17’s perspective,

…the young person’s perception might be quite different on what work would be more effective if we were more guided by them. (YW17)

She hints at the way that instruments (such as Asset) tend to be applied in a habitual, routinised fashion that have implications for the outcomes they produce. YW17 thus raises an important theme underlying many of the workers’ accounts, both implicitly and explicitly: that young people must be involved ‒ that is, they must have a voice, a say in what they do and what they need ‒ for youth justice work to be effective. 8.2 Limitations of the data

Several limitations to this study are acknowledged: the sampling criteria; the reliance on Asset data; the way in which reoffending data were gathered.

8.2.1 The sample

The starting point for this research was the profiling study by YJB Cymru (2012) which identified and provided background to the ‘prolific’ cohort of 2009-10. The criteria by which young people were defined as prolific in their offending (25+ offences) captured a group who had accumulated a high number of convictions, the majority of whom were aged between 15 and 17. Younger children whose offending may have been as high-volume and high-frequency as the teenagers in the sample, however, may have been missed. For instance, an eleven or twelve-year-old who had committed ten offences in two years would have been excluded by the sampling criteria even though their offending matched the characteristics of the ‘prolific’ cohort in other ways. Thus the sampling was seen to limit the data and its accurate depiction of the extent of ‘prolific’ offending in Wales. Another sampling criterion, such as the number of offences committed within a particular time period (e.g. 6 offences within 12 months), could have captured a broader age range within the sample and provided greater diversity in the follow-up data. Differentiation

140

between volume, persistence, frequency and seriousness may have provided greater insights into the nature and prevalence of the various dimensions of ‘prolific’ offending.

8.2.1. Reliance on Asset data

This study was in many ways constrained by its reliance on case file data to construct a picture of young people’s circumstances and the social settings of and environmental influences on their behaviour. These data were comprised of risk assessments, inherently shaped by and oriented towards a young person’s ‘risk of reoffending’ rather than highlighting or focusing on their desires, concerns, strengths or long-term needs. This shortcoming was expressed in YW17’s view (shared by some of the YOT workers interviewed) of the way in which the Asset framed and to some extent limited their work with young people:

the Asset assessment – I know it will be changing shortly which is a plus – but the assessment is all sort of risk factors … and I think the positive and protective factors … I don’t think we give them enough attention as we do the risk factors. (YW17)

Even with the best intentions, youth justice workers can ‘create monsters on paper’49 by assembling predominantly risk-focused information about young people. Such case file information comprised a significant part of the data collected for this study. Given that effective work with young people relies on engagement, and effective engagement begins with effective assessment, these shortcomings of the data are seen as a key finding of the research: that assessment too narrowly focused on risk limits the effectiveness of interventions with young people involved in offending. This also highlights that the interviews with YOT workers, YOT managers and the young people themselves were crucial to balance these accounts with a more rounded picture of the young people in their social context.

8.2.3 Reoffending data

The local, individualised collection of reoffending data through various sources at YOTs and via police headquarters meant that the data gathered were not uniform or consistent. This limited the usefulness and depth of analysis of these data and points to the need for further concentrated work in this area. Notwithstanding this limitation, the qualitative data were seen to yield rich insights into whether, how and why young people were able (or not) to create spaces in their offending, and/or to find stability and sustain changes in their lives.

Based on these insights, and the findings above, the following recommendations are made: 8.3 Recommendations

1) ‘Prolific offending’ is not a useful term – it needs to differentiate between distinct dimensions that reflect very different patterns of behaviour:  Volume – how much?  Persistence – how long?  Frequency – how often?

49 See note above.

141

 Seriousness – how serious?

2) Young people involved in high-volume, high-frequency and/or persistent offending are different and have different needs. Any intervention with a young person must be underpinned and informed by a deep understanding of these needs. This understanding is best developed over time and through relational work with the young person.

3) Effective work with young people involved in high-volume and/or persistent offending is characterised by these key elements:  Relationships – trust, belief, respect, listening  Boundaries – consistent support, clear expectations, flexible boundaries  Involving young people – giving them a voice, engaging young people in things that matter to them, helping them to adhere to boundaries and expectations  Persistence – ‘sticking with them’, not taking it personally  A positive, future-oriented focus on young people’s strengths

Effective work begins with effective assessment, to build an understanding of all the issues at play in a young person’s life and what they perceive to be important. While relationships, boundaries and persistence take time to establish, the other key element ‒ involving young people ‒ begins at that first ‘official’ point of contact. Assessment can only be effective with the young person’s involvement, engagement and input into the process of gathering and prioritising information. Too narrow a focus on risk at that point limits effective work by missing a critical opportunity to hear and include the young person’s voice.

Effective work with young people is characterised by a positive focus on identifying and building young people’s strengths – within themselves and within their social context, peer networks and relationships. This relationship-based, strengths-based focus is more important that offending- specific work for bringing about lasting change in young people’s view of themselves.

4) The different dimensions, drivers and ‘types’ of offending need to be taken into account when determining the most appropriate way of working with a young person. Work with young people must be shaped by an understanding of the different dimensions, drivers and ‘types’ of offending. This means understanding different ways of working, and an emphasis on skills and strategies, appropriate for and relevant to different ‘types’, such as:

• The rebel: generative work focused on other young people, leadership skills/qualities • The entrepreneur: focus on the translation of skills, identifying meaningful incentives • The resigned: emphasis on hope by building stable, trusting relationships • The seeker: advocacy-based work, creating/negotiating opportunities, access, and supporting continuity • The pest: work focused on boundaries and help/support to adhere to boundaries • Every now and then: (including ‘looked after’ children and those in crisis or transition) focus on meeting need for stability and consistency; support transitions by strengthening relationships (via partnerships) around the young person.

142

These ‘types’ and the suggested ways of working are not prescriptive. Rather they offer a starting point for seeing each young person in the context of the particular range of factors underlying their offending, and in terms of their desire and capacity for change. Recognising young people’s capacity and readiness for change, and acknowledging and supporting their transitions towards a more positive future, must be the overarching goal.

5) Reducing young people’s offending involves supporting their transitions towards a more positive sense of themselves and the future. Changes in young people’s lives that lead to reductions in their offending (and in the factors that lead to their offending) are best understood as transitions to a positive, pro-social way of living. This involves a gradual process of positive identity development. Such transitions are inherently fragile states of being during which young people need support and assistance.

6) Effective work to support young people’s transition towards more positive, pro-social lifestyles needs to focus on the gaps in their offending and recognise and celebrate their successes (small and great). Young people’s transitions to pro-social lives are comprised of the ‘gaps’ or spaces in between their offending, and the small successes they achieve and accumulate gradually, over time. Supporting these transitions involves focusing on the gaps between offending, recognising and celebrating the small successes that young people achieve and, to enable these to accumulate, persisting with them over time.

7) Young people’s transitions – including the transition to a life away from offending – must be understood and supported in the context of young people’s lives. Young people’s lives do change, often in unexpected ways. Focusing on the gaps in offending encourages a strengths-based way of working that seeks to identify and build on positive aspects of a young person’s life and experience. This means working in relationship with the young person, in their social and community context (i.e. avoiding ‘individualisation’), to support their gradual transitions towards hope, confidence, and a positive future.

For those of you with experience and understanding of teenagers’ lives, and the complexities that lie beneath the surface of their challenging and difficult behaviours, these findings will hold few surprises. Nevertheless, this research will have contributed something if adults in the field feel encouraged and reassured about ways of working to support young people in the midst of difficult lives and challenging behaviours. And, most importantly, if this means young people are inspired and supported to sustain positive changes in their lives.

143

References

Akers, R (1973) Deviant Behaviour: A Social Learning Approach. California: Wadsworth. Åkerström, M, Burcar, V and Wästerfors, D (2011) ‘Balancing Contradictory Identities – performing masculinity in victim narratives’, Sociological Perspectives, 54(1): 103–124. Andrews, D A, Zinger, I, Hoge, R D, Bonta, J, Gendreau, P and Cullen, FT (1990) ‘Does Correctional Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant and Psychologically Informed Meta-Analysis’, Criminology, 28(3): 369-404. Andrews, D A and Bonta, J (1998) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson. Andrews, D A and Dowden, C (2006) ‘Risk Principle of Case Classification in Correctional Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Investigation’, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(1): 88-100. Antonucci, L, Hamilton, M and Roberts, S (Eds.) (2014) Young People and Social Policy in Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Armstrong, D (2004) ‘A risky business? Research, policy, governmentality and youth offending’, Youth Justice, 4(2): 100-116. Armstrong, D (2006) ‘Becoming criminal: the cultural politics of risk’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(2): 265-278. Baker, K (2005) ‘Assessment in Youth Justice: Professional Discretion and the Use of Asset’, Youth Justice, 5(2):106-122. Baker, K (2012 and 2014) AssetPlus Rationale London YJB. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/367782/Ass etPlus_Rationale_revised_October_2014_1_0.pdf Baldry, E, McDonnell, D, Maplestone, P and Peeters, M (2003) ‘Ex-prisoners and accommodation: what bearing do different forms of housing have on social reintegration: Final Report.’ Melbourne: AHURI. Barn, R (2011) ‘Care leavers and social capital: understanding and negotiating racial and ethnic identity’, in T. Reynolds (ed.) Young People, Social Capital and Ethnic Identity, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 84-102. Barry, M (2006) Youth Offending in Transition: The Search for Social Recognition. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Barry, M (2007) ‘Youth offending and youth transitions: the power of capital in influencing change’, Critical Criminology, 15 (2): 185-198. Barry, M (2010) ‘Youth transitions: from offending to desistance’, Journal of Youth Studies, 13(1): 121-136. Barry, M (2015) ‘On the cusp of recognition: Using critical theory to promote desistance among young offenders’, Theoretical Criminology, 1-16, doi: 10.1177/1362480615586613 Barry, M and McNeill, F (eds.) (2009) Youth Offending and Youth Justice. Series: Research highlights. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 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. Bateman, T (2013) ‘Children in Conflict with the Law: An overview of trends and developments ̶ 2012’, National Association for Youth Justice Briefing, July 2013,

144

Bateman, T and Hazel, N (2013) Engaging Young People in Resettlement. UK: Beyond Youth Custody.http://www.beyondyouthcustody.net/resources/publications/engaging-young- people-resettlement/ Bateman, T and Hazel, N (2014) Youth Justice Timeline as a starting point (available online: http://www.beyondyouthcustody.net/policy/youth-justice-timeline/). Becker, H (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press. Biehal, N, Ellison, S, Sinclair, I, Randerson, C, Richards, A, Mallon, S, Kay, C, Green, J, Bonin, E and Beecham, J (2010) A Report on the Intensive Fostering Pilot Programme. London: Youth Justice Board. Blumer, H (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall Bottrell, D (2007) ‘Resistance, Resilience and Social Identities: Reframing ‘Problem Youth’ and the Problem of Schooling’, Journal of Youth Studies, 10(5): 597-616 Bottrell, D and Armstrong, D (2007) ‘Changes and Exchanges in Marginal Youth Transitions’, Journal of Youth Studies, 10(3): 353-371 Bracken, D C, Deane L and Morrissette L (2009) ‘Desistance and social marginalization: The case of Canadian Aboriginal offenders’, Theoretical Criminology, 13(1): 61–78. Braithwaite, J (1989) Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Braithwaite, J, and Mugford, S (1994) Conditions of Successful Reintegration Ceremonies: Dealing with Juvenile Offenders. British Journal of Criminology, 34: 139-171. Brewster, D (2015) Youth –to-Adult Transitions Policy The Welsh Centre for Crime and Social Justice and IOM Cymru. http://wccsj.ac.uk/ Brown, M and Ross, S (2010a) ‘Mentoring, Social Capital and Desistance: A Study of Women Released from Prison.’ Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(1): 31-50. Brown, M and Ross, S (2010b) ‘Assisting and supporting women released from prison: is mentoring the answer?’ Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 22(2): 217-232. Burnett, R and Maruna, S (2006) ‘The kindness of prisoners: Strengths-based resettlement in theory and in action’. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 691); 83-106. Carlile Lord (2014) Independent Parliamentarians’ Inquiry into the Operation and Effectiveness of the Youth Court. Case, S and Haines, K (2014a) ‘Children First, Offenders Second: The Centrality of Engagement in Positive Youth Justice’, The Howard Journal, 54(2): 157-175. Case, S and Haines, K (2014b) ‘Children First, Offenders Second Positive Promotion: Reframing the Prevention Debate’, Youth Justice, 1-14. doi: 10.1177/1473225414563154 Case, S and Haines, K (2014c) ‘Youth justice: From linear risk paradigm to complexity’, Chapter 6 in A. Pycroft and C. Bartollas Applying Complexity Theory, University of Bristol: Policy Press. Clinks and T2A (2012) Going for Gold: Developing Effective Services for Young Adults throughout the Criminal Justice Process http://www.clinks.org/going-for-gold Clinks and T2A (2015) Effective Approaches with Young Adults: A Guide for Probation Services https://www.t2a.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Probation-guide_Ver4_sml.pdf Cloward, R, and Ohlin, L (1960) Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. New York: Free Press. Crotty, M (1998) The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

145

Czarniawska, B (2004) Narratives in Social Science Research. London: SAGE Dörnyei, Z and Ushioda, E (2011) Teaching and Researching Motivation (2nd Ed.). UK: Pearson. Drake, D, Fergusson, R and Briggs, D (2014) ‘Hearing new voices: Re-viewing Youth Justice Policy through Practitioners’ Relationships with Young People’, Youth Justice, 14(1): 22-39 Drakeford, M (2010) ‘Devolution and youth justice in Wales’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10(2): 137–154. Ewick, P and Silbey, S S (1995) ‘Subversive Stories and Hegemonic Tales: Towards a Sociology of Narrative’ Law and Society Review 29(2): 197-226. Erikson, E H (1950) Childhood and Society. New York: Norton. Farrall, S and Calverley, A (2006) Understanding Desistance from Crime: Emerging Theoretical Directions in Resettlement and Rehabilitation. UK: Open University Press Farrall, S, Hunter, B, Sharpe, G and Calverley, A (2014) Criminal Careers in Transition: The Social Context of Desistance from Crime. UK: Oxford University Press. Farrington, D P (1995) The development of offending and antisocial behaviour from childhood: Key findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 929-964. Farrington, D P, Ohlin, L E and Wilson, J Q (1986) Understanding and Controlling Crime: Toward a New Research Strategy. New York: Springer-Verlag. Farrington, D P and West, D J (1993) Criminal, penal and life histories of chronic offenders: Risk and protective factors and early identification. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 3, 492-523 Farrington, D P and West, D (1995) ‘Effects of marriage, separation and children on offending by adult males.’ In J. Hagan (ed.) Current perspectives on aging and the life cycle. Vol. 4: Delinquency and disrepute in the life course. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Farrow, K, Kelly, G and Wilkinson, B (2007) Offenders in Focus. Bristol: Policy Press.

Fraser, H (2004) Doing narrative research: Analyzing personal stories line by line. Qualitative Social Work, 3(2): 179-201. Garfinkel, H (1956) ‘Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies’, American Journal of Sociology, 61(5): 420-424. Garside R (2004) Crime, persistent offenders and the justice gap. Crime and Society Foundation, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King’s College London.

Gendreau, P, Goggin, C and Cullen, F (1999) The effects of prison sentences on recidivism. A report to the Corrections Research and Development and Aboriginal Policy Branch, Solicitor General of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Giddens A (1991) Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late-modern age, Cambridge, Polity Press. Giordano, P C, Cernkovich, S A and Rudolph J L (2002) ‘Gender, crime and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation’, American Journal of Sociology, 107: 990-1064. Goffman E (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday. Graham, J and Bowling, B (1995) Young People and Crime. Home Office Research and Planning Unit Report. Home Office Research Study 145. London: Home Office. Gray, E (2013) What Happens to Persistent and Serious Young Offenders When They Grow Up: A Follow-Up Study of the First Recipients of Intensive Supervision and Surveillance. Youth Justice Board (YJB) for England and Wales, UK.

146

Gray, E, Taylor, E, Roberts, C, Merrington, S, Fernandez, R and Moore, R (2005) Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme: The final report. Youth Justice Board (YJB) for England and Wales, UK. Habermas, T and Bluck, S (2000) ‘Getting a life: The emergence of the life story in adolescence’, Psychological Bulletin, 126(5): 748-69. Habermas, T and Reese, E (2015) ‘Getting a Life Takes Time: The Development of the Life Story in Adolescence, Its Precursors and Consequences’, Human Development, 58(3): 172-20. Haigh, Y (2009) Desistance from crime: Reflections on the transitional experiences of young people with a history of offending. Journal of youth studies, 12(3): 307-322. Haines, K R (2009) The dragonisation of youth justice. In: Taylor W, Earle R, and Hester R (eds.) Youth Justice Handbook: Theory, policy and practice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, 231-242. Haines, K R and Case, S P (2011) Risks, rights or both? Evaluating the common aetiology of negative and positive outcomes for young people to inform youth justice practice. Social Work Review, 2: 109–122 Haines, K R and Case, S P (2015) Positive youth justice: Children first, offenders second. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Haines, K R and Charles, A (2010) The Swansea Bureau: Children first, offending second. Report to Swansea Youth Offending Service. Haines, K R, Case, S P, Davies, K and Charles, A (2013) ‘The Swansea Bureau: A model of diversion from the Youth Justice System’, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 41(2): 167-187 Haines, K R and Drakeford, M (1998) Young People and Youth Justice. London: Macmillian. Halsey, M and Deegan, S (2015) Young Offenders: Crime, Prison and Struggles for Desistance. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Healy D (2010) The Dynamics of Desistance – Charting Pathways Through Change. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Healy, D and O’Donnell, I (2008) ‘Calling Time on Crime: Motivation, Generativity and Agency in Irish Probationers.’ Probation Journal, 55(1): 25-38. Henry, S, Henaghan, M, Sanders, J and Munford, R (2014) ‘Engaging Youth in Youth Justice Interventions: Well-being and Accountability’, Youth Justice, 1-14. Hill, M (1999) ‘What's the problem? Who can help? The perspectives of children and young people on their well-being and on helping professionals’, Journal of Social Work Practice, 13(2): 135–145. Hine, J (2004) Children and citizenship. Home Office Online Report 08/04. UK: Home Office. Hirschi, T (1969) Causes of Delinquency. Burkerley: University of California Press. HM Prison Service (2004) Prolific and Other Priority Offenders Strategy, Prison Service Order (PSO) No.4615, Issue No. 216. London, UK. Holland, J, Reynolds, T and Weller, S (2007) ‘Transitions, Networks and Communities: The Significance of Social Capital in the Lives of Children and Young People’, Journal of Youth Studies, 10:1, 97-116. Home Office (2004) Joint Inspection Report into Persistent and Prolific Offenders, Home Office. House of Commons (2014) HC 307 - Crime Reduction Policies: A Co-Ordinated Approach? House of Commons: Justice Committee, Great Britain: Parliament.

147

Ipsos MORI (2010) A Review of Techniques for Effective Engagement and Participation. London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. Jamieson, J, McIvor, G and Murray, C (1999) Understanding Offending Among Young Offenders. Edinburgh: The Scottish Executive Jenkins, R (2004) Social identity (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Kemshall, H (2008) ‘Risks, Rights and Justice: Understanding and Responding to Youth Risk’, Youth Justice, 8(1): 21–37. Laub, J H and Sampson, R J (2001) ‘Understanding Desistance from Crime’, Crime and justice 28: 1-69.

Laub, J H, and Sampson, R J (2003) Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. LeBel, T P (2007) ‘An examination of the impact of formerly incarcerated persons helping others.’ Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46(1/2): 1–24. LeBel, T P, Burnett, R, Maruna, S and Bushway, S (2008) ‘The ‘Chicken and Egg’ of Subjective and Social Factors in Desistance from Crime.’ European Journal of Criminology, 5(2): 131-159.

Leibrich J (1993) Straight to the point: angles on giving up crime, University of Otago Press: Otago

Lemert, E M (1951) Social Pathology: A Systematic Approach to the Theory of Sociopathic Behaviour. New York: McGraw Hill.

Lemert, E M (1972) Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Loeber, R and Stouthamer-Loeber, M (1996) ‘The Development of Offending’. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23: 12-24.

Loeber, R, Farrington, D P and Petechuk, D (2003) ‘Child Delinquency: Early Intervention and Prevention’ Child Delinquency. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. May, 2003 MacCallum J, Beltman S and Palmer D (2005) ‘Mentoring as a context for developing motivation’. Paper presented at Australian Association for Research in Education conference, Sydney, 29 November. Retrieved 10 June 2015 from MacDonald R and Marsh, J (2005) Disconnected Youth? Growing Up in Britain’s Poor Neighbourhoods. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Maruna, S (1997) ‘Going Straight: Desistance from crime and life narratives of reform’, in A. Lieblich and R. Josselson (eds.). The narrative study of lives, (pp. 59-93). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Maruna, S (2001) Making Good: How Ex-convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Maruna, S and Farrall, S (2004) ‘Desistance from crime: A theoretical reformulation’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 43: 171-194. Maruna, S, LeBel, T, Mitchell, N and Naples, M (2004) ‘Pygmalion in the Reintegration Process: Desistance from Crime through the Looking Glass’, Psychology, Crime and Law, 10(3): 271-281. Maruna, S, McNeill, F, Farrall, S and Lightowler, C (2012) ‘Desistance Research and Probation Practice: Knowledge Exchange and Co-producing Evidence-Based Practice Models’, Irish Probation Journal, 9: 42-55.

148

Maruna, S, Coyle, B, and Marsh, B (2015) ‘Desistance from Crime in the Transition to Adulthood’, in B Goldson and J Muncie (eds.) Youth Crime and Justice (2nd Ed.), Sage: UK, Chapter 10. Mason, P and Prior, D (2008) Engaging Young People who Offend. UK: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. McAdams, D P (1985) Power, intimacy, and the life story: Personological inquiries into identity. New York: Guilford Press. McAdams, D P (1993) The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York: Morrow. McAdams, D P (1995) ‘What do we know when we know a person?’ Journal of Personality, 63(3): 365-396. McAdams, D P (1996) ‘Personality, Modernity, and the Storied Self: A Contemporary Framework for Studying Persons’, Psychological Inquiry, 7(4): 295-321. McAdams, D P (2001) ‘The Psychology of Life Stories’, Review of General Psychology, 5(2): 100- 122. McAdams, D P and de St Aubin, E (1992) ‘A Theory of Generativity and its Assessment through Self-Report, Behavioural Acts, and Narrative Themes in Autobiography’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(6): 1003-1015. McAdams, D P, de St. Aubin, E and Logan, R L (1993) ‘Generativity Among Young, Midlife, and Older Adults’, Psychology and Aging, 8(2): 221-230. McAdams, D P, and Logan, R L (2004) What is generativity? Chapter 2 in E. de St. Aubin, D. P. McAdams, and T-C Kim (eds.). The generative society: Caring for future generations, (pp. 15-31). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McAra, L and McVie, S (2013) ‘Delivering Justice for Children and Young People: Key Messages from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime’ Howard League for Penal Reform 3- 14. McGuire, J, Kinderman, P and Hughes, C (2002) Offending Behaviour Programmes. London: YJB. McIvor, G, Jamieson, J and Murray, C (2000) ‘Study Examines Gender Differences in Desistance from Crime’, Offender Programs Report, 4(1): 5-9. McNeill, F (2006) ‘Community supervision: context and relationships matter’, in B. Goldson and J. Muncie (eds.) Youth Crime and Justice, pp.125–138. London: Sage. McNeill, F, Batchelor, S, Burnett, R and Knox, J (2005) 21st Century Social Work: Reducing Re- offending: Key Practice Skills, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. McNeill, F and Maruna, S (2007) ‘Giving up and giving back: Desistance, generativity and social work with offenders’, Chapter 12 in G. McIvor and P. Raynor (Eds.)Developments in Social Work, Research Highlights in Social Work 48. London: Jessica Kingsley.

McNeill, F and Whyte, B (2007) Reducing Reoffending: Social Work and Community Justice in Scotland. Cullompton: Willan. Mead, G H (1934) Mind, Self and Society (edited by C W Morris). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ministry of Justice (2010) Green Paper Evidence Report - Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders. London: Ministry of Justice.

Moffitt, T E (1993) ‘Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behaviour: A developmental taxonomy’. Psychological Review, 100: 674-701.

149

Morgan, R (2009) Report to the Welsh Assembly Government on the question of Devolution of Youth Justice Responsibilities http://gov.wales/docs/dsjlg/publications/commsafety/100920devyouthjusticeen.pdf (last Accessed February 2018)

Munford, R and Sanders, J (2015) ‘Negotiating and Constructing Identity: Social Work with Young People Who Experience Adversity’ The British Journal of Social Work 45(5): 1564-1580 Murray, C (2010) Conceptualizing Young People's Strategies of Resistance to Offending as ‘Active Resilience’. British Journal of Social Work, 40(1): 115-132. Murray, C (2012) Young people’s perspectives: The trials and tribulations of going straight. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 12(1): 25-40. NACRO (2009) Youth Justice and Participation in Wales, Youth Offending Unit Report, NACRO Cymru, Wales. Pawson R (2004) Mentoring relationships: an explanatory review. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice: Working paper no. 21. London: UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice. Phoenix, J and Kelly, L (2013) ‘“You have to do it for yourself”: Responsibilisation in Youth Justice and Young People’s Situated Knowledge of Youth Justice Practice’, British Journal of Criminology, 53(3): 419–437. Polkinghorne, D E (1995) ‘Narrative Configuration in Qualitative Analysis’ International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. 8(1): 5-23. Prochaska, J and DiClemente, C (1983) ‘Stages and Processes of Self-Change of Smoking: Toward an Integrative Model of Change’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3): 390-395. Rand, A. (1987) ‘Transitional Life Events and Desistance from Delinquency and Crime’. In M E Wolfgang, T P Thornberry and R Figlio (eds.) From Boy to Man, From Delinquency to Crime Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Riessman, C. K. (1993) Narrative Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Riessman, C.K. (2002) ‘Analysis of Personal Narratives’, in J.A. Gubrium and J.F Holstein (eds.) Handbook of Interview Research, pp. 695–710. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Robinson, A (2015) ‘The Resilience Motif: Implications for Youth Justice’, Youth Justice, 1-16. Rowe, M and Soppitt, S (2014) ‘Who you gonna call?’ The role of trust and relationships in desistance from crime’, Probation Journal, 61(4): 397–412 Sampson, R J and Laub, J H (1993) Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press Sampson, R J and Laub, J. H. (2003) ‘Life-Course Desisters? Trajectories of Crime Among Delinquent Boys Followed to Age 70.’ Criminology 41: 301-339. Sandelowski, M (1995) ‘Qualitative analysis: What it is and how to begin’, Research in Nursing and Health, 18(4): 371-375. Saumure, K and Given, L (2008) ‘Data Saturation’, in L Given (Ed.) The Sage Encyclopaedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Serin R C and Lloyd C D (2009) ‘Examining the process of offender change: The transition to crime desistance’, Psychology, Crime and Law 15: 347- 364. Shover, N (1985) Aging Criminals. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Somers, M (1994) ‘The narrative constitution of identity: a relational and network approach’, Theory and Society 23: 605-649.

150

Spencer, D (2014) ‘Exposing the conditions of precarity: compounding victimization and marginalized young people’, Contemporary Justice Review, 17(1): 87-103. Stephenson, M, Adams, M, and Tarling, R (2014) The Art of Engagement? Outcomes and Impact of the Summer Arts College Programme 2007-12. Norwich, UK: Unitas. Stevens, A (2012) ‘‘I am the person now I was always meant to be’: Identity reconstruction and narrative reframing in therapeutic community prisons’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 12(5): 527–547. Sutherland, E (1940) ‘White-collar criminality’, American Sociological Review, 5(1): 1-12. T2A (2012) Pathways from Crime: Ten steps to a more effective approach for young adults in the criminal justice process. T2A Alliance, UK. www.t2a.org.uk. T2A (2013) Taking Account of Maturity: A Guide for Probation Practitioners. Produced as part of the Transition to Adulthood Programme by the Institute for Applied Social Studies, University of Birmingham, UK. T2A/Howard League (2015) You can’t put a number on it, report by the Transition to Adulthood (T2A) Alliance, published by the Howard League for Penal Reform, London, UK. Terry, D and Abrams, L S (2015) ‘Dangers, Diversions, and Decisions: The Process of Criminal Desistance Among Formerly Incarcerated Young Men’ International Journal of Offender Theory and Comparative Criminology 1-24. Thomas, S (2015) ‘Children First Offenders Second: An Aspiration or a Reality for Youth Justice in Wales’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bedfordshire, UK. Trevithick, P (2005) Social Work Skills: A Practice Handbook, 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Trotter, C (1999) Working with Involuntary Clients: A guide to practice. London: Sage. Ungar, M (2004) Nurturing hidden resilience in troubled youth. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Valentine, G (2000) ‘Exploring children and young people’s narratives of identity’, Geoforum, 31: 257-267.

Vindrola-Padros, C and Johnson, G A (2014) ‘The Narrated, Nonnarrated, and the Disnarrated: Conceptual Tools for Analyzing Narratives in Health Services Research.’ Quality Health Research 24(11):1603-11

Ward, T (2006) Promoting human goods and reducing risk, in PFNZ 2006: Beyond Retribution: advancing the law and order debate, Proceedings of the 2006 Prison Fellowship of New Zealand conference, Prison Fellowship of New Zealand, Upper Hutt, New Zealand, 111-117.

Weber, M (1962) Basic Concepts in Sociology New York: Citadel Press.

Welsh Government (2014) White Paper on Prevention of Offending by Young People http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/19299/1/140205-white-paper-provention-youth-offending-en.pdf (Last Accessed February 2018)

Welsh Assembly Government and Youth Justice Board, Cymru (2004) All Wales Youth Offending Strategy. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government and YJB, Cymru. http://gov.wales/dsjlg/publications/commmunitysafety/youthoffendingstrategy/strategye?lan g=en (Last accessed February 2018)

151

Welsh Assembly Government and Youth Justice Board, Cymru (2009) All Wales Youth Offending Strategy – Delivery Plan 2009-11. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government and YJB, Cymru. http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/9616/13/fileDownload.asp_file%3DAll%2BWales%2BYouth%2BOffendi ng%2BStrategy%2B-%2BDelivery%2BPlan%2B2009-11_Redacted.pdf (Last accessed February 2018)

Welsh Government and YJB, Cymru (2014) Children and Young People First: Youth Justice Strategy 2014. Cardiff: Welsh Government and Youth Justice Board, Cymru. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/374572/Yo uth_Justice_Strategy_English.PDF (Last accessed February 2018)

Wickenden, M (2011) ‘Talking to Teenagers: Using Anthropological Methods to Explore Identity and the Lifeworlds of Young People Who Use AAC’, Communication Disorders Quarterly, 32(3): 151–163.

Yessine, A K and Bonta, J (2008) Pathways to Serious Offending Canada, Public Safety Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Cat. No. PS3-1/2008-1E-PDF. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2008-01-pts/2008-01-pts-eng.pdf

YJB (2011) Youth Justice Statistics 2009/10, England and Wales, Youth Justice Board/ Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin. Home Office, UK

YJB (2013) Youth Justice Statistics 2011/12, England and Wales, Youth Justice Board/ Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin. Home Office, UK

YJB (2015) Youth Justice Statistics 2013/14, England and Wales Youth Justice Board/ Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin. Home Office, UK.

YJB Cymru (2004) All Wales Youth Offending Strategy http://gov.wales/dsjlg/publications/commmunitysafety/youthoffendingstrategy/strategye?lang= en

YJB Cymru (2012) ‘Profiling young people with prolific offending histories’, YJB Cymru, UK.

YJB Cymru (2013) Restorative Justice and Prevention Report: Diversion from the Youth Justice System in Wales. Youth Justice Board Cymru, Wales UK.

YJB Cymru (2014) Children and Young People First https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/374572/Youth_ Justice_Strategy_English.PDF

YJB/NOMS Cymru (2015) Youth to Adult Transition Principles and Guidance (Wales) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/434127/Youth_ to_Adult_Transition_Principles__Wales_.pdf

Zamble, E and Porporino, F (1990) ‘Coping, Imprisonment, and Rehabilitation Some Data and their Implications’ Criminal Justice and Behavior 17(1):53-70

152

Zamble, E and Porporino, F (2013) Coping Behaviour, and Adaptation in Prison Inmates Springer-Verlag (first Published in 1988)

153

Appendix 1: Changes in reoffending since 2009

Table 1 Changes in reoffending, 2009-10 to 2013-14, across the ten YOTs from the original sample Overall Jul 2009 to Jul 2013 to change from YOTs in the sample Jun 2010 Jun 2014 2009-10 to 2013-14 Caerphilly and Blaenau Gwent Proportion of YP who re-offend (%) 12.3 13.5  Average number of re-offences per re-offender 1.51 1.74  Average number of re-offences per offender 0.18 0.24  Number of re-offences 125 40  68% Number of YP in cohort 676 170  75% Average number of previous offences per YP 1.68 3.04  Cardiff Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) 16.6 16.1  Average number of re-offences per re-offender 1.80 2.09  Average number of re-offences per offender 0.30 0.34  Number of re-offences 211 94  55% Number of offenders in cohort 703 280  60% Average number of previous offences per offender 2.66 2.11  Carmarthenshire Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) 13.2 17.0  Average number of re-offences per re-offender 1.79 1.84  Average number of re-offences per offender 0.24 0.31  Number of re-offences 95 70  26% Number of offenders in cohort 402 223  45% Average number of previous offences per offender 2.02 1.95  Gwynedd and Ynys Môn Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) 12.7 12.7 same Average number of re-offences per re-offender 1.56 2.40  Average number of re-offences per offender 0.20 0.31  Number of re-offences 84 48  43% Number of offenders in cohort 424 157  63% Average number of previous offences per offender 1.62 2.19  Merthyr Tydfil (now part of Cwm Taf) Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) 24.5 25.0  Average number of re-offences per re-offender 2.05 2.63  Average number of re-offences per offender 0.50 0.66  Number of re-offences 78 21  73% Number of offenders in cohort 155 32  79% Average number of previous offences per offender 2.26 3.41  Monmouthshire and Torfaen Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) 10.9 19.3  Average number of re-offences per re-offender 2.22 1.67  Average number of re-offences per offender 0.24 0.32  Number of re-offences 100 45  55% Number of offenders in cohort 414 140  66% Average number of previous offences per offender 1.63 2.59  Neath Port Talbot (now part of Western Bay)

154

Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) 15.3 15.1  Average number of re-offences per re-offender 2.27 1.45  Average number of re-offences per offender 0.35 0.22  Number of re-offences 109 16  85% Number of offenders in cohort 313 73  77% Average number of previous offences per offender 1.69 1.95  Newport Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) 12.5 21.6  Average number of re-offences per re-offender 1.95 1.78  Average number of re-offences per offender 0.24 0.39  Number of re-offences 121 66  45% Number of offenders in cohort 497 171  66% Average number of previous offences per offender 2.02 3.52  Swansea (now part of Western Bay) Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) 10.5 14.3  Average number of re-offences per re-offender 1.50 1.61  Average number of re-offences per offender 0.16 0.23  Number of re-offences 48 29  40% Number of offenders in cohort 305 126  59% Average number of previous offences per offender 1.77 3.05  Wrexham Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) 17.1 17.4  Average number of re-offences per re-offender 1.84 1.59  Average number of re-offences per offender 0.31 0.28  Number of re-offences 103 43  58% Number of offenders in cohort 327 155  53% Average number of previous offences per offender 3.13 3.51  TOTAL number of YP in reoffending cohort 4216 1527 2009-10 to = 45% of = 41% of 2013-14 YP in YJS YP in YJS  64% TOTAL number of YP in YJS across Wales 7,646 2605  66%

Source: Early estimates of proven re-offending rates for juvenile offenders, by YOT, July 13 to June 14 (www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics)

155

Appendix 2: Characteristics of the sample

Selected characteristics of the sample based on 2009-10 assessments.

Figure 6 Number of young people living with both parents (n=117)

Figure 7 Young person's family members involved in criminal activity (n=105) 50

Figure 8 Inconsistent supervision and boundary setting (n=109)

50 Responses to: “Evidence of family members or carers with whom the young person has been in contact over the last six months being involved in criminal activity” (12 responses either ‘Don’t know’ or ‘Not recorded’)

156

Figure 9 Young people with experience of abuse (n=102)

Figure 10 Predominantly pro-criminal peers (n=110)

Figure 11 Lack of non-criminal friends (n=110)

157

Figure 12 Nothing much to do in spare time (n=114)

Figure 13 Participation in reckless activity (n=112)

Figure14 Inadequate personal income (n=109)

158

Appendix 3: Asset domains 9 to 12

Table 6 Asset domains 9 to 12

9) Perception of self and others

Don’t Please indicate whether any of the following apply to the young person Yes No know

*S/he has difficulties with self-identity.

*S/he has inappropriate self-esteem (e.g. too high or too low).

*S/he has a general mistrust of others.

Sees him/herself as a victim of discrimination or unfair treatment (e.g. in the home, school, community, prison).

*S/he displays discriminatory attitudes towards others (e.g. race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, class, disability, sexuality).

*S/he perceives him/herself as having a criminal identity.

10) Thinking and behaviour

Don’t *Are the young person’s actions characterised by any of the following? Yes No know *Lack of understanding of consequences (e.g. immediate and longer term outcomes, direct and indirect consequences, proximal and distal consequences)

*Impulsiveness

*Need for excitement (easily bored)

*Giving in easily to pressure from others (lack of assertiveness)

Poor control of temper

*Inappropriate social and communication skills

Don’t *Does the young person display any of the following types of behaviour? Yes No know

*Destruction of property

*Aggression towards others (e.g. verbal, physical)

*Sexually inappropriate behaviour

*Attempts to manipulate/control others

11) Attitudes to offending

Don’t *Please indicate whether the young person displays any of the following attitudes. Yes No know

*Denial of the seriousness of his/her behaviour

*Reluctance to accept any responsibility for involvement in most recent offences

*Lack of understanding of the effect of his/her behaviour on victims (if victimless, on society)

*Lack of remorse

*Lack of understanding about the effects of his/her behaviour on family/carers

*A belief that certain types of offences are acceptable

*A belief that certain people/groups are acceptable ‘targets’ of offending behaviour

*S/he thinks that further offending is inevitable

159

12) Motivation to change

Don’t Please indicate whether the young person displays any of the following attitudes. Yes No know

*Has an appropriate understanding of the problematic aspects of his/her own behaviour

Shows real evidence of wanting to deal with problems in his/her life

*Understands the consequences for him/herself of further offending

*Has identified clear reasons or incentives for him/her to avoid further offending

*Shows real evidence of wanting to stop offending

Will receive positive support from family, friends or others during any intervention

Is willing to co-operate with others (family, YOT, other agencies) to achieve change

*Rate the extent to which the young person’s perception of self and others is associated with the likelihood of further offending. (0 = not associated, 4 = very strongly associated)

160

Appendix 4: YOT staff interviewed

Table 7 YOT staff interviewed Interview Location Position M/F Code Code YM01 YOT 9 YOT Manager M YW02 YOT 1 Senior Practitioner/ Operations Mgr M YW03 YOT 1 Social Worker/ Case Manager F YM04 YOT 1 YOT site mgr, ex Senior Prac F YW05 YOT 1 Subs. Misuse worker F YW06 YOT 1 Snr Prac/ Operations Mgr F YM07 YOT 2 Service Manager F YW08 YOT 2 Snr Prac SW M YW09 YOT 2 Snr Prac SW F YW10 YOT 2 Snr Prac SW F YW11 YOT 2 SW M YW12 YOT 3 ISSP (ex PPO) M YM13 YOT 3 YOT Locality Mgr F YW14 YOT 3 Crt officer, Mgr referral order team F YW15 YOT 3 Stat order team F YW16 YOT 3 Stat order team M YW17 YOT 4 Operations Mgr F YW18 YOT 4 ISSP Coordinator F YW19 YOT 7 Operat’l Mgr Prevention etc. F

161