Social policy development
The purpose of this essay is to discourse societal policy development in the Youth Justice System ( YJS ) . It places the treatment in the context of some of the economic sciences, political and societal constructs that influence societal policy development in the YJS. The essay further discusses some of the impacts of these policies in relation to societal exclusion, inequality and poorness. It will besides measure the constructions and administrations like ; the Youth Justices Board ( YJB 2004 ) , the Intensive Surveillance and Supervision Programme ( ISSP ) and the Youth piquing Teams ( YOT ) that are involved in the public assistance proviso. The essay besides explores the relationships amongst the different bureaus involved in societal public assistance proviso for immature wrongdoers.
A figure of youth justness policies have been developed between 1979 to day of the month. In 1979 the Conservative Government came to power with rhetoric of being tough on offense than its Labour oppositions. They introduced a tougher government known as ‘short crisp daze ‘ into detainment Centres, they promised to imprison every individual who was sentenced by the Judgess and magistrates. As a consequence, the prison population rose ( Says who? ) .
In an effort to restrict the prison population, they encouraged recreation from tribunal and detention and besides opted for shorter sentences for many ‘run-of-mills ‘ wrongdoers. They besides introduced a less rough step policy of bifurcation which was advocated for the less serious wrongdoers. ( Goldson: 2008 ) . Despite these steps, the prison population continued to lift with regular out interruptions of public violences and upset within prisons.
After the 1987 General Elections, Douglas Hard the so Home Office secretary introduced new YJS attacks which became to be known as the Hurd attack. They included volunterisation, denationalization, managerialism, offense bar and the vicinity ticker. ( Cavadin & A ; Dignan: 2006 )
They besides introduced the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which created a incorporate sentence of detainment in Young Offenders Institutions. The Children Act of 1989 which directed local governments to do agreements for recreation from prosecution of kid wrongdoers ( Muncie et al 2002 ) .
New Labour Government introduced the early intercessions and renewing justness normally known as the 3Rs ( Restoration, reintegration and reparation ) , they passed the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which introduced the Detention and Training Order ( Goldson, 2008 ) . They created the Youth Justice Board ( YJB ) which is a multi-agency young person organic structure that identifies and proctors good pattern ( YJB 2004 ) . They formed the Youth Offending Teams ( YOTs ) which locally co-ordinate the proviso of young person justness services and are responsible for assorted supervisory responsibilities in respect to community punishments, intercession programmes and pre-sentence studies ( Muncie et al 2006 ) . Among other policies, they introduced the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to get the better of favoritism and inequality in the system ( Blakemore and Griggs: 2007 ) .
It would be noteworthy that although the Conservative Government ‘s policies and those of New Labour appear different, they are mostly similar in that they all hold the rule of penalty in them. However, to analyze their effectivity, the essay evaluates the factors that influenced these reforms and their impact on the immature wrongdoers ‘ and those at hazard.
Social policy development in the YJS is significantly influenced by political relations. Kevin ( 2009 ) states that, “ the constitution of the Youth Offending Teams ( YOT ) and the new young person justness model was imposed by the authorities ” ( Kevin, 2009: 298 ) . Furthermore, Goldson ( 2008 ) states that:
“ due to coerce on the authorities to take action on young person offense, the determination to implement the Intensive Surveillance and Supervision Programme ( ISSP ) was taken long before the ratings of the pilots could even be completed ” ( Goldson, 2008, p.136 ) .
Critics of political intervention in policy development like Kevin ( 2009, p. 295 cited in Pitts, 2000 ) advises that “ the demand for critical pattern is overriding no affair how clever the authorities thinks it is ” . Goldson ( 2008, p.164 ) farther supports this sentiment by saying that “ Evidence Based Policy Practice improves determination devising and should inform the development of public policy ” . While, Blakemore and Griggs ( 2007, p.197 ) recommend that the authorities plays a prima function in policy development, but remain comparatively unfastened to professionals and force per unit area groups. This point appears to transport more weight as it strikes a balance between the function of the authorities, elitists and the force per unit area groups. This brings up the argument of the independency of the bench from the province.
Social policy development in the young person justness is non merely shaped by political influences, but besides by economic constructions in society. Smith ( 2003 ) argues that the authorities ‘s concern to cut province disbursement encouraged the decrease in the usage of expensive custodial options and as a consequence, it opted for community sentences. He farther points out that the diminution in the usage of secure adjustment in local governments from 1981 onwards was a budget-driven docket ( ibid ) . This farther supports Alcock, ( 2008, p.198 ) statement that “ societal policy development is closely dependent upon the economic construction of the society and upon the economic growing within it ” .
Social policy development in the YJS may besides be influenced by Voluntary and Community Sector ( VCS ) . Smith ( 2007, p. 29-30 ) argued that it was the Children ‘s Society that reported that ‘an inter-agency enterprise ‘ in South Wales had produced successful results such as the rushing up of the judicial procedure and decrease of piquing while on bond, that the acceptance of a comprehensive attack to pull offing the YJS was initiated. Smith ( 2007 ) further provinces that the inter-agency enterprise became the most effectual manner of presenting an in agreement bundle of appraisal, service direction and record-keeping. However, Alcock ( 2008, p.165 ) criticises that “ most voluntary administrations exclude some possible militants through societal divisions of one sort or another ” .
Having explored the societal, economic and political factors that influence societal policy development, an penetration on how these reforms improve the public assistance and well-being of people in relation to societal exclusion, poorness and inequality is of import.
Evidence from YJB ( 2008 ) states that:
“ many of the ISSP participants had a scope of underlying demands and were extremely socially excluded: some had non been engaged in mainstream constructions for some considerable clip. In many instances, households had already asked for aid but had been unable to acquire any aid ” .
It besides states that “ 89 per centum of immature people on ISSP reoffended at some point in the first twelvemonth of the plan ” ( YJB, 2004 ) . Although the ISSP is merely a individual YJB plan, the per centum of reoffending as stated in the study is significantly high and it can be argued that this policy has non efficaciously cover with the issue of societal public assistance of immature wrongdoers.
However, Blakemore and Griggs ( 2007:62 ) province that “ the YJB attacks are ‘needs focussed ‘ and that they include schemes like ; psychopathology, societal work and instruction. ” This may propose that by holding intercessions like psychopathology and societal work, is an indicant that immature wrongdoers have underlying issues which can non be solved by penalty or detention. This line of treatment is supported by Goldson and Muncie ( 2006 ) asseverating that:
“ immature people for whom the cloth of life constantly stretches across poorness ; household strife ; drug and intoxicant abuse ; mental hurt ; ill-health ; emotional, physical and sexual maltreatment ; self harm ; homelessness ; isolation, solitariness ; circumscribed educational and employment chances ; ‘hollowed -out ‘ communities and most urgent sense of hurt and disaffection are the really kids targeted by the young person justness setup ” . ( Goldson and Muncie, 2006, p.222 )
From the jobs identified above, it can besides be argued that policy- shapers should be taking at advancing societal public assistance alternatively of condemnable justness and by so making, professionals like ; head-shrinkers, societal workers and instructors would be clear about what they are seeking to accomplish. Goldson and Muncie ( 2006 ) further call for the ethically legitimate, rights-compliant and effectual attacks to youth offense and justness saying that attacks must be located within a wide principal of societal and economic policy instead than the narrower confines of youth/criminal justness policy ” ( ibid ) .
The YJB ( 2006 ) states that, “ the authorities has a Social Exclusion Action Plan and that poorness has been reduced ” . It farther provinces that “ more demands to be done to undertake societal exclusion, concentrating on undertaking the rhythms of disadvantage that can take to societal exclusion being passed from one coevals to the following ” . This appears to propose that the YJB admits that current policies are unequal to turn to the issues of poorness and societal exclusion. As stated eerier that the ISSP which is YJB ‘s scheme to rehabilitate relentless immature wrongdoers was implemented in hastiness, long before its pilots were completed. Could this be the grounds why it produced unwanted results? .
In add-on to the above, it appears that penalizing immature wrongdoers with implicit in issues has contributed to the YJB ‘s ineffectualness. This statement is supported by Goldson ( 2007 ) asseverating that: –
“ despite such developments in policy, the deep-seated tensenesss between public assistance and justness that are intrinsic to jurisprudence, policy and pattern in regard of kids in problem, continue to consist the beginning of controversy and complexness ” ( Goldson 2008: p.207 ) .
This is amplified by Muncie ( 2009, p. 242 cited Hughes, and Young, 2007 ) reasoning that “ the inclusionary rules, values and ideals that inform some societal policies should non be abandoned, but resurrected within dockets of societal justness, instead than condemnable justness ” .
More concerns in footings of inequality and favoritism by Blakemore and Griggs ( 2007 ) point out that the condemnable justness system is unjust and that African-Caribbeans are more likely to be jailed than Whites or Asians. He besides states that the constabulary are non speedy to react to patroling demands of cultural minorities than they should hold ( ibid ) . Furthermore, Muncie ( 2009 ) argues that cultural minority young persons are statistically more likely to be stopped and searched by the constabulary, but piquing rates for African Caribbean are non higher than those of Whites.
The illustrations of prejudiced pattern and inequality may take one to inquire how the YOTs can work efficaciously when the constabulary force which has been accused of prejudiced patterns.
It is noteworthy that statute laws such as the Criminal Justice Act 2003 were introduced to get the better of the immoralities of favoritism and inequality in the full condemnable justness system. However, the illustrations of unequal intervention, unfairness, deficiency of equity and favoritism do bespeak that these issues are alive, and do necessitate to be addressed. Therefore, the policy planning procedure, execution and reappraisal should concentrate on authorising immature wrongdoers to get the better of the issues of societal exclusion, poorness and inequality.
This essay has reflected on the impact of some of the political, societal and economic influences on societal policy development and how these attendant policies on the YJS have impacted on societal exclusion, poorness and inequality. The essay appreciates the being of the YOT as a multi- bureau squad in the young person justness system that includes, head-shrinkers, societal workers. Youth workers and instruction. The essay deplores the being of the rule of penalty in the in a system which should be taking at liberating immature wrongdoers who have underlying issues. The essay has besides discussed the being of favoritism and inequality which exposes immature wrongdoers to societal exclusion as a consequence of defects in the policies. Although this essay has appraised debut of the New Labour policies, it concludes that the pattern remains mostly the same despite the alteration in policy.
- Barry Goldson 2008: Dictionary of young person justness 2008.Devon, Willan.
- Cavadino.M, and James Dignan J: Penal systems: A comparative attack ; London: Sage.
- John Pierre ( 2003 ) : Handbook of Public Administration. Sage, London
- Ken Blakemore and Edwin Griggs ( 2007 ) : societal Policy an debut 3rd Open University, Berkshire England.
- John Muncie, Gordon Hughes, Eugene McLaughlin ( 2006 ) : Youth justness: critical readings.London, Sage.
- Jo Barry Goldson and John Muncie ( 2006 ) Young person, offense and justness: critical issues. London: Sage. Muncie ( 2009 ) : Young person and Crime. 6th Edition, London, Sage.
- Roger Shiply Smith ( 2007 ) : Ideas, policy, pattern. 2nd Edition, Devon Willan.
- Roger Shipley Smith ( 2003 ) : Youth justness: thoughts, policy, pattern. Devon, Willan.
- Pete Alcock, Angus Erskine and Margaret May: Student comrade 2nd edition 2003 Oxford. Blackwell )
- hypertext transfer protocol: //www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/News/SocialExclusionPlan.htm Last accessed 17th /11/2009.
- hypertext transfer protocol: //www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/News/ISSPInitialReport.htm. Last accessed 25/10/2009 10: autopsy
- Youth Justice Board ( YJB ) ( 2009 ) [ WWW ] Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/practitioners/Diversity/Refugees/ [ Accessed 12th March 2009 ] .