Should ‘transport circumstance’ be classified as a Sarah Brooks-Wilson

Should ‘transport circumstance’ be classified as a
key youth justice risk factor?
Sarah Brooks-Wilson
Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of York
sarah.brooks-wilson@york.ac.uk
Project underpinnings/presentation structure
Young
people’s journeys
Organisational structures, policies and practices
Appointment management
Locality settings
Institutional
Geography
Youth
Justice
Attendance
Non-compliance
Breach
Sentence
escalation
Social
Policy
Social
justice
Inequalities
Education,
employment,
income
Background:
Youth Justice
Limited transport evaluation
(YJB 2006a,b, 2010a)
Informal and
formal
responses to
‘noncompliance’
(MoJ 2010, YJB
2010a)
Repeated
absence as
‘noncompliance’
(MoJ 2010, YJB
2010a)
Breach
proceedings
and possible
sentence
escalation
(SGC 2009)
Background:
Youth Justice


We know:

Inspection data suggests absence is a significant problem (CJJI 2008, JIYOTEW
2005)

Breach rates can vary for different types of orders and locality settings (MoJ
2012)

Existing policy commitments outline the need for a proportionate response,
adequate support and custody as a last resort (YJB 2010b, Thomas 2008, SGC
2009, UNICEF 2009)
We do not know:

The extent to which absence is cushioned by informal mechanisms

The proportion of breach offences that result from absence
Background:
Geography and Social Policy

Adverse transport circumstances have been connected with:

Limited access private transport and essential services (Lucas et al 2009, Stanley
and Lucas 2008)

Poverty and social exclusion (Cusworth et al 2009, Levitas et al 2007, Gordon et
al 2000)

Some groups of children and young people (Sharkey and Shields 2008, Spilsbury
2005, Woolley 2006, Baslington 2009)
In many cases these groups overlap with the youth justice population (YJB 2005, Hart
2011). Does this suggest that convicted young people may experience similar
issues when accessing local YOT offices?
Research context

Two YOT case studies with high breach and deprivation rates were chosen for
further investigation in 2012

57 research participants were accessed (28 young people and 29 YOT practitioners)
in 24 interviews and seven focus groups. Stratified and convenience sampling was
used

Fieldwork took place in a two YOT offices, an attendance centre, two YOT youth
centres and a minibus
Background:
Geography and Youth Justice
18
Ten highest and lowest breach rates in England by location 2009-10 (%)
16
14
Breach rate (%)
12
10
8
National average = 6.32%
6
4
2
0
YOT 1 YOT 2 YOT 3 YOT 4 YOT 5 YOT 6 YOT 7 YOT 8 YOT 9 YOT 10
YOT
131
YOT
132
YOT
133
YOT
134
YOT
135
YOT
136
YOT
137
YOT
138
YOT
139
English Youth Offending Team Office Ranked by Court Order Breach Rate (2009-10)
Source: Ministry of Justice 2012
YOT
140
Background:
Geography, Youth Justice and Social Policy
Neighbourhoods in the bottom quintile for income, employment and education deprivation in 2010
60
Neighbourhoods in the bottom quintile in each locality (%)
50
40
Income
30
Employment
20
Education,
skills and
training
10
0
YOT 1 YOT 2 YOT 3 YOT 4 YOT 5 YOT 6 YOT 7 YOT 8 YOT 9 YOT 10
YOT
131
YOT
132
YOT
133
YOT
134
YOT
135
YOT
136
YOT
137
YOT
138
YOT
139
YOT
140
English Youth Offending Team Office Ranked by Court Order Breach Rate (2009-10)
Source: Ministry of Justice 2012, DCLG 2011, ONS 2012
Visual research methods
Parenting
support
Police
appointments
Reparation
Training Centre
Employment
requirement
Social support
Community
panel
Education and
learning
Court
appointments
Employment
and skills
Financial
support
Housing
support
General YOT
appointment
Mental health
support
Drug misuse
support
Findings:
Characteristics of different YOT facets
Procedural
Needs based (external)
Needs based (internal)
Appointment types
Court appointments;
Police station; Unpaid
work; Community
Panel; Attendance
Centre; Reparation
Housing; Finance;
Mental health; Social
Services; Education
Substance misuse;
Employment; Training;
Finance; Parenting;
Locations
Multiple
Multiple
Mostly YOT office
Flexibility in location
Limited
Limited
Negotiated between
practitioners and
service users
Level of consequence
Higher
Higher
Lower
Reported attendance
Higher
Higher
Lower
YOT Practitioners, Mining Town interviews 1-7
Findings:
Youth justice geography and education

Practitioners provided extensive support when limited literacy levels impeded the
capacity to make a YOT journey. This suggests the potential for YOTs to be less
accessible in areas of higher educational deprivation:
‘I’m waiting to hear if a young person needs that kind of support for
Thursday... Mum... doesn’t have basic literacy, so it needs for her to get herself
on the bus into town, find herself a bus out from town out to [village] then
deal with the interview and what’s gonna come from that, and then go the
same journey back – I think that’s gonna be quite hard so I’ve at least with my
diary offered to take them but I’m not sure about them getting back, so that’s
partly on my mind a little bit’
YOT Practitioner, Mining Town
Findings:
Youth justice geography and education

Sometimes, YOT organisational structures were modified to better accommodate
young people (Manion and Flowerdew 1982). In some cases, this resulted in
increased YOT-based access barriers, suggesting how unintended difficulties can
arise when attempting to meet young people’s mobility needs:
‘We had a pupil referral unit in the town centre... that worked a lot better...
because the biggest barrier for us is having a client who has got to catch two
buses and a two hour journey to get to school, to be put on a three hour
timetable. And then a two hour journey home. It’s one of the biggest barriers
we’ve got about the units.’
Educational Practitioner, Mining Town
Findings:
Youth justice geography and education

With respect to education, multiple journey barriers were more commonly found.
As a result, compounded consequences could also be delivered. This raised further
questions about absence-based ‘non-compliance’ and breach responses (MoJ 2010,
YJB 2010a):
‘Some PCSOs [Police Community Support Officers] are taking [free travel] cards
off young people if they’re causing anti-social behaviour in the station or on
the buses.. if they need that to get to their education provision they’re not
going to go to school’
Education Practitioner, Mining Town
Findings:
Youth justice geography and income

Practitioners and young people reported YOT journey making barriers in connection
with income, supporting existing research (Lucas et al 2009, Gordon et al 2000,
Cusworth et al 2009):
‘I’d never get the buses like – me mam’s got no money... four kids, she only
gets about eighty quid a week... For her self and the baby’
Male aged 17 on a Referral Order, Mining Town
‘Ninety five per cent of parents don’t drive... Lots of people struggle with
unpaid work cos they’ve got to be there for quarter to nine... They get free bus
fares but they can only use it after nine o clock, so they’ve got to pay to get to
unpaid work – we’ll refund the tickets but someone’s got to give them the
money to start with’
YOT Practitioner, Mining Town
Findings:
Youth justice geography and income

Similar to adults (Lucas et al 2009) and other young people (Gordon et al 2000) with
a low income, convicted young people living in low income households reported
having limited access to private transport. A variety of journey making risks were
subsequently described in connection with public transport and active travel modes
(Sharkey and Shields 2008, Spilsbury 2005):
‘...some kids down another street pull a knife... It’s happened to my brother
before... I wont walk down that area anymore’
Young male aged 16 on a referral order, Mill Town
Findings:
Youth justice geography and income

Limited transport options (and a reliance on public and active travel modes) also
resulted in the increased likelihood of YOT orders impeding YOT accessibility
(Sharkey and Shields 2008):
‘I’ve got one at the moment who, she committed an offence in a railway
station... so she’s not allowed in that particular station, but she’s allowed on
railways and she can get on the next stop... So the next one’s only couple of
miles away, so we just made it clear that there’s obviously buses into [Mining
Town] as well’
YOT Practitioner, Mining Town
Findings:
Youth justice geography and employment

Parental unemployment was described as limiting young people’s ‘home range’ or
distance travelled from home (Spilsbury 2005). As a result, practitioners located
many appointments in highly accessible places. This did raise further questions
about how some issues (such as lack of travel confidence) could be supported for
more rigid appointments:
‘We’ve got a young man at the moment ...he’s convinced that everybody
who’s not from (his village) is out to get him...he wont do anything unless it
takes place in (his village)... He wont travel through any other part of the
borough, because he’s scared there are people out to get him. And its not an
uncommon thing really’... There’s lots of people in (local authority area) who
stay in their village their whole life and never leave its boundaries’
YOT Court Officer, Mining Town
Discussion

This research suggests that in some cases, young people face significant
transport barriers when attempting to access youth justice services

Irrespective of existing mandatory consultation rights (UNICEF 2009), young
people are in an ideal position – whatever their circumstance - to help refine
policies so they are more equitable and effective
Discussion

Subsequently, a formal evaluation of young people’s ‘transport circumstance’
would have the potential to:

Rigorously assess youth justice accessibility, which can vary according to locality
setting, organisational structure and young people’s circumstances

Help facilitate equitable practitioner support, based on young people’s needs and
not informal resourcing

In terms of attendance, help distinguish the ‘unable’ from the ‘unwilling’

Gauge the extent of the absence problem, and the degree to which formal breach
mechanisms are used in this context

Help evaluate the appropriateness of an instance based punishment system for all
persistent absence

Allow alternative approaches to be considered, potentially contributing to reduced
incarceration and criminalisation, and lower system-based costs.
Thank you
References
Baslington, H., (2009), Children’s perceptions of and attitudes towards, transport modes: why a vehicle for change is long overdue, Children’s Geographies, Vol 7, No 3, pp305-322.
Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, (2008), A Complicated Business: A joint inspection of electronically monitored curfew requirements, orders and licenses, London: Criminal Justice Joint
Inspection.
Cusworth L., Bradshaw, B., Coles, B., Keung, A. and Chzhen, Y., (2009), Understanding the risks of social exclusion across the life course: Youth and Young Adulthood, London: Social Exclusion
Task Force / University of York.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2011), Indices of Deprivation 2010 http://www.communities.gov.uk/communities/research/indicesdeprivation/deprivation10/ London:
Department for Communities and Local Government.
Gordon, D., Levitas, R., Pantazis, C., Patsios, D., Payne, S., Townsend, P., Adelman, L., Ashworth, K., Middleton, S., Bradshaw, J., and Williams, J., (2000), Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain,
York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Hart, D., (2011), Into the Breach: the enforcement of statutory orders in the youth justice system, Prison Reform Trust: London.
Joint Inspection of Youth Offending Teams in England and Wales, (2005), Report on: Salford Youth Offending Team, London: HM Inspectorate of Probation.
Levitas, R., Pantazis, C., Fahmy, E., Gordon, D., Lloyd, E., and Patsios, D., (2007), The Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Social Exclusion, Bristol: University of Bristol.
Lucas, K., Tyler, S., and Christodoulou, G., (2009), Assessing the ‘value’ of new transport initiatives in deprived neighbourhoods in the UK, Transport Policy, Vol 16, pp115-122.
Manion, T., and Flowerdew, R., (1982), Introduction: Institutional Approaches in Geography in Flowerdew, R., Institutions and Geographical Patterns, London: Croom Helm.
Ministry of Justice (2010), Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders, London: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice (2012), Offences resulting in a disposal regionally 2009-10 , freedom of information request 13th February 2012, London: Ministry of Justice.
Office for National Statistics (2012), Neighbourhood Statistics – custom search
http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/AreaSubject1.do;jsessionid=JcmgP0nYfQnVRVvXDcF33w91B6dTX2yrHZhGxF73n2npv2gSjMpq!358643682!1341402680350?&nsjs=true&
nsck=true&nssvg=false&nswid=1280 Newport: Office for National Statistics
Sentencing Guidelines Council, (2009), Overarching Principles – Sentencing Youths, London: Sentencing Guidelines Council.
Sharkey, A., and Shields, R., (2008), Abject citizenship - rethinking exclusion and inclusion: participation, criminality and community at a small town youth centre', Children's Geographies, Vol
6, No 3, pp.239-256. Spilsbury, J., (2005), 'we don't really get to go out in the front yard'—children's home range and neighborhood violence, Children’s Geographies, Vol 3, No 1, pp79-99.
Spilsbury, J., (2005), 'we don't really get to go out in the front yard'—children's home range and neighborhood violence, Children’s Geographies, Vol 3, No 1, pp79-99.
Stanley, J. and Lucas, K., (2008), Social Exclusion: What can public transport offer? Research in Transport Economics, Vol. 22, pp36-40.
Thomas, M., (2008), Youth Justice Board, in Goldson, B., (ed), Dictionary of Youth Justice, Cullompton: Willan.
UNICEF (2009), A summary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child, London: Unicef.
Woolley, H., (2006), 'Freedom of the city: Contemporary issues and policy influences on children and young people's use of public open space in England', Children's Geographies, Vol 4, No 1,
pp.45-59.
Youth Justice Board (2005), Risk and Protective Factors, London: Youth Justice Board.
Youth Justice Board (2006a), Asset Core Profile, London: Youth Justice Board.
Youth Justice Board (2006b), Asset what do YOU think? London: Youth Justice Board.
Youth Justice Board (2010a), Process Evaluation of the pilot of a Risk-based Approach to Interventions, London: Youth Justice Board.
Youth Justice Board (2010b), National Standards for Youth Justice Services, London: Youth Justice Board.