After the Mubarek report, there is now recognition that there need to be significant changes to mental health services at young offender institutions. The author asks whether young people with mental health problems can ever be treated in such settings.
After the Mubarek report, there is now recognition that there need to be significant changes to mental health services at young offender institutions. The author asks whether young people with mental health problems can ever be treated in such settings.
Subject terms:
mental health problems, mental health services, young offender institutions, young offenders, youth justice;
Journal of Youth Studies, 21(5), 2018, pp.636-652.
Publisher:
Taylor and Francis
Place of publication:
Philadelphia, USA
lthough several criminologists and social scientists have drawn attention to the high rates of mental and cognitive disability amongst populations of young people embroiled in youth justice systems, less attention has been paid to the ways in which young people with disability are disproportionately exposed to processes of criminalisation and how the same processes serve to further disable them. In this paper, we aim to make a contribution towards filling this gap by drawing upon qualitative findings from the Comparative Youth Penality Project – an empirical inter-jurisdictional study of youth justice and penality in England and Wales and in four Australian states. We build on, integrate and extend theoretical perspectives from critical disability studies and from critical criminology to examine the presence of, and responses to, socio-economically disadvantaged young people with multiple disabilities (complex support needs) in youth justice systems in our selected jurisdictions. Four key findings emerge from our research pertaining to: (i) the criminalisation of disability and disadvantage; (ii) the management of children and young people with disabilities by youth justice agencies; (iii) the significance of early and holistic responses for children and young people with complex support needs; and (iv) the inadequate nature of community based support.
(Edited publisher abstract)
lthough several criminologists and social scientists have drawn attention to the high rates of mental and cognitive disability amongst populations of young people embroiled in youth justice systems, less attention has been paid to the ways in which young people with disability are disproportionately exposed to processes of criminalisation and how the same processes serve to further disable them. In this paper, we aim to make a contribution towards filling this gap by drawing upon qualitative findings from the Comparative Youth Penality Project – an empirical inter-jurisdictional study of youth justice and penality in England and Wales and in four Australian states. We build on, integrate and extend theoretical perspectives from critical disability studies and from critical criminology to examine the presence of, and responses to, socio-economically disadvantaged young people with multiple disabilities (complex support needs) in youth justice systems in our selected jurisdictions. Four key findings emerge from our research pertaining to: (i) the criminalisation of disability and disadvantage; (ii) the management of children and young people with disabilities by youth justice agencies; (iii) the significance of early and holistic responses for children and young people with complex support needs; and (iv) the inadequate nature of community based support.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
crime victims, punishment, young people, complex needs, mental health problems, cognitive impairment, youth justice;
This guidance concerns children and young people aged 10 to 17 years who may have mental health problems, and who offend or who are at risk of offending. It seeks to inform planners and other key stakeholders responsible for children and young people, principally within local health boards, Welsh police forces and local authorities. It aims to support improvements in mental health provision for this vulnerable and often marginalised group of children and young people by: engaging children and young people in mainstream services through access to high quality prevention, treatment and support; ensuring all services work in a holistic, multi-agency partnership and are accountable for meeting the needs of children and young people; diverting children and young people away from the youth justice system and into services which are accountable for and able to meet their needs; ensuring that the values, attitudes, knowledge and skills of practitioners enable young people to stop offending and lead crime-free lives; and helping children and young people make a seamless transition between a youth justice sentence and an independent, crime-free life. This guidance sets out the key principles of how and where intervention is likely to have the greatest impact, by making recommendations in how best to improve service delivery responses and in how this activity should be governed.
(Edited publisher abstract)
This guidance concerns children and young people aged 10 to 17 years who may have mental health problems, and who offend or who are at risk of offending. It seeks to inform planners and other key stakeholders responsible for children and young people, principally within local health boards, Welsh police forces and local authorities. It aims to support improvements in mental health provision for this vulnerable and often marginalised group of children and young people by: engaging children and young people in mainstream services through access to high quality prevention, treatment and support; ensuring all services work in a holistic, multi-agency partnership and are accountable for meeting the needs of children and young people; diverting children and young people away from the youth justice system and into services which are accountable for and able to meet their needs; ensuring that the values, attitudes, knowledge and skills of practitioners enable young people to stop offending and lead crime-free lives; and helping children and young people make a seamless transition between a youth justice sentence and an independent, crime-free life. This guidance sets out the key principles of how and where intervention is likely to have the greatest impact, by making recommendations in how best to improve service delivery responses and in how this activity should be governed.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
children, young people, young offenders, youth justice, mental health problems, service transitions, diversion;
This publication draws on data from AssetPlus, an assessment and planning framework used with children by Youth Offending Teams and secure establishments across England and Wales. The report focuses on a small subset of data, relating to assessed concern types (factors that practitioners judge to be affecting the child, covering their wellbeing, how they relate to other people, social factors and issues at home or their own behaviours); care status types, looking at the child’s current and previous care history; as well as the four ratings for both Safety and Wellbeing (risk that a child’s safety and well-being is now or in the future potentially compromised) and Risk of Serious Harm (looking at the imminence and likelihood of death or serious personal injury whether physical or psychological). The data shows that a large proportion of children assessed had concerns present across most concern types, giving an indication of the vulnerability and complex needs of sentenced children within the Youth Justice System. Over 70% had a concern present for five of the 19 concern types, including safety and wellbeing, risk to others, substance misuse, speech, language and communication, and mental health. Crucially, over half of children assessed showed them to be a current or previous child in need. In the year ending March 2019, almost half of children assessed had a Medium Risk of Serious Harm rating, while 29% were rated as High or Very High – as the sentence type severity increased so did the proportion of children that had a High or Very High Risk of Serious Harm rating.
(Edited publisher abstract)
This publication draws on data from AssetPlus, an assessment and planning framework used with children by Youth Offending Teams and secure establishments across England and Wales. The report focuses on a small subset of data, relating to assessed concern types (factors that practitioners judge to be affecting the child, covering their wellbeing, how they relate to other people, social factors and issues at home or their own behaviours); care status types, looking at the child’s current and previous care history; as well as the four ratings for both Safety and Wellbeing (risk that a child’s safety and well-being is now or in the future potentially compromised) and Risk of Serious Harm (looking at the imminence and likelihood of death or serious personal injury whether physical or psychological). The data shows that a large proportion of children assessed had concerns present across most concern types, giving an indication of the vulnerability and complex needs of sentenced children within the Youth Justice System. Over 70% had a concern present for five of the 19 concern types, including safety and wellbeing, risk to others, substance misuse, speech, language and communication, and mental health. Crucially, over half of children assessed showed them to be a current or previous child in need. In the year ending March 2019, almost half of children assessed had a Medium Risk of Serious Harm rating, while 29% were rated as High or Very High – as the sentence type severity increased so did the proportion of children that had a High or Very High Risk of Serious Harm rating.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
youth justice, young offenders, looked after children, wellbeing, mental health problems, risk assessment, self-harm, sentences;
Updates the 2015 report from the Early Intervention Foundation on the financial cost of late intervention for children and young people in England and Wales. 'Late intervention' covers the cost of acute, statutory and essential services that are required when children and young people experience significant difficulties in life, many of which might have been prevented. The report analyses how the estimated cost of late intervention has changed since the 2015 report, looks at how the costs are spread across different public agencies and looks at how spending varies across England and Wales. The cost analysis included: crime and anti-social behaviour, school absence and exclusion, children’s social care, child injuries and mental health problems, substance misuse, and youth economic inactivity. It estimates that nearly £17 billion per year, equivalent to £287 per person, is spent by the state late intervention. Whilst the estimated cost of late intervention has not changed since the 2015 report, the analysis shows that its profile has changed. Costs due to domestic violence and abuse has risen to £5.2 billion, while the cost of criminal justice for children and young people is lower, driven by reductions in the youth justice system caseload and the number of recorded incidents of anti-social behaviour. The analysis also found the amount spent on late intervention varied significantly across England and Wales. Using spend per person in each local authority as a basis for comparison, an average cost £298 ranged from a low of £164 to a high of £531, with higher levels of late intervention spending more likely to found in areas with higher levels of deprivation. It concludes that in order to tackling injustice and increasing social mobility for children and families, investment in effective early intervention should be targeted in particular on service areas where spending on late intervention is high. The accompanying technical report sets out in detail the data sources and methods used.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Updates the 2015 report from the Early Intervention Foundation on the financial cost of late intervention for children and young people in England and Wales. 'Late intervention' covers the cost of acute, statutory and essential services that are required when children and young people experience significant difficulties in life, many of which might have been prevented. The report analyses how the estimated cost of late intervention has changed since the 2015 report, looks at how the costs are spread across different public agencies and looks at how spending varies across England and Wales. The cost analysis included: crime and anti-social behaviour, school absence and exclusion, children’s social care, child injuries and mental health problems, substance misuse, and youth economic inactivity. It estimates that nearly £17 billion per year, equivalent to £287 per person, is spent by the state late intervention. Whilst the estimated cost of late intervention has not changed since the 2015 report, the analysis shows that its profile has changed. Costs due to domestic violence and abuse has risen to £5.2 billion, while the cost of criminal justice for children and young people is lower, driven by reductions in the youth justice system caseload and the number of recorded incidents of anti-social behaviour. The analysis also found the amount spent on late intervention varied significantly across England and Wales. Using spend per person in each local authority as a basis for comparison, an average cost £298 ranged from a low of £164 to a high of £531, with higher levels of late intervention spending more likely to found in areas with higher levels of deprivation. It concludes that in order to tackling injustice and increasing social mobility for children and families, investment in effective early intervention should be targeted in particular on service areas where spending on late intervention is high. The accompanying technical report sets out in detail the data sources and methods used.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
costs, intervention, young people, childrens social care, substance misuse, children, youth justice, school attendance, mental health problems;
It is well established that high numbers of children who come to the attention of youth justice services have complex support needs, low levels of educational attainment, and far more unmet health needs than other children. An online survey was undertaken between October and December 2009 to investigate how staff from youth offending teams (YOTs) identify and support children with particular impairments and difficulties, and what support they in turn receive. Responses were received from over half of YOTs in England and Wales; there were 208 responses from 89 YOTs. The impairments and difficulties included were: mental health problems, IQs of less than 70, communication difficulties, ADHD, autistic spectrum disorder, low levels of literacy, special educational needs, and specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia. The research identified a lack of routine screening and assessment to identify children’s support needs. Although YOT staff spoke highly of specialist services and support, many reported gaps in provision. The survey found that: only around half of YOT staff said they received any training to help identify when children might have particular impairments and difficulties; most YOTs did not use screening or assessment tools or procedures to identify children with learning disabilities; fewer than 1 in 10 staff said their YOT kept statistics on the number of children with disabilities serving court orders; and more than 1 in 5 staff said their YOT did not have a mental health worker. Most YOT staff reported that children with these impairments were more likely to receive a custodial sentence. This report also includes the findings of 3 focus groups, which took place in July 2010, looking specifically at the issue of custodial sentences.
It is well established that high numbers of children who come to the attention of youth justice services have complex support needs, low levels of educational attainment, and far more unmet health needs than other children. An online survey was undertaken between October and December 2009 to investigate how staff from youth offending teams (YOTs) identify and support children with particular impairments and difficulties, and what support they in turn receive. Responses were received from over half of YOTs in England and Wales; there were 208 responses from 89 YOTs. The impairments and difficulties included were: mental health problems, IQs of less than 70, communication difficulties, ADHD, autistic spectrum disorder, low levels of literacy, special educational needs, and specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia. The research identified a lack of routine screening and assessment to identify children’s support needs. Although YOT staff spoke highly of specialist services and support, many reported gaps in provision. The survey found that: only around half of YOT staff said they received any training to help identify when children might have particular impairments and difficulties; most YOTs did not use screening or assessment tools or procedures to identify children with learning disabilities; fewer than 1 in 10 staff said their YOT kept statistics on the number of children with disabilities serving court orders; and more than 1 in 5 staff said their YOT did not have a mental health worker. Most YOT staff reported that children with these impairments were more likely to receive a custodial sentence. This report also includes the findings of 3 focus groups, which took place in July 2010, looking specifically at the issue of custodial sentences.
Subject terms:
learning disabilities, mental health problems, screening, special educational needs, vulnerable children, young offenders, youth justice, youth offending teams, assessment, autistic spectrum conditions;
This report summarises a Nacro Cymru Youth Offending Team report in to the role of mental health practitioners in youth offending teams in Wales. The report outlines how the Welsh Assembly Government has devolved responsibility for health matters and although the Youth Justice Board centrally determines the policy direction of youth offending teams (YOTs) there are sometimes differences in strategic priorities and their implementation in Wales. For YOTs this means having cognisance of what the YJB require but also consideration of any particular implications in the Welsh context. YOTs have to respond to the demands of the criminal justice system within particular time frames whereas health services respond to need on a clinical and not referred basis. The requirements of both services can potentially be at odds with one another, as culturally they are very different and it has undoubtedly been a challenge at times to find common ground. However, there is good evidence of integration between health and YOTs and the significant benefit this has brought for young people. This report considers: the arrangements for delivering mental health services in YOTs; the value of the worker; he role of the health professional; protocols and agreements; training of the health specialist and YOT practitioners; use of screening tools; referral; gaps in services; and reviewing an monitoring performance. The report concludes that all YOTs need access to a mental health specialist. YOTs and CAMHS need to have cohesive working arrangements that include representation on YOT management boards, YOT representation within CAMHS strategic planning forums and joint monitoring and review of service provision. Reviews of CAMHS should consider extending the provision of services for young people up to 18 years of age. Despite changes to YOT key performance indicators it would be helpful for YOTs and the Welsh Assembly Government to continue to monitor the mental health needs of young people.
This report summarises a Nacro Cymru Youth Offending Team report in to the role of mental health practitioners in youth offending teams in Wales. The report outlines how the Welsh Assembly Government has devolved responsibility for health matters and although the Youth Justice Board centrally determines the policy direction of youth offending teams (YOTs) there are sometimes differences in strategic priorities and their implementation in Wales. For YOTs this means having cognisance of what the YJB require but also consideration of any particular implications in the Welsh context. YOTs have to respond to the demands of the criminal justice system within particular time frames whereas health services respond to need on a clinical and not referred basis. The requirements of both services can potentially be at odds with one another, as culturally they are very different and it has undoubtedly been a challenge at times to find common ground. However, there is good evidence of integration between health and YOTs and the significant benefit this has brought for young people. This report considers: the arrangements for delivering mental health services in YOTs; the value of the worker; he role of the health professional; protocols and agreements; training of the health specialist and YOT practitioners; use of screening tools; referral; gaps in services; and reviewing an monitoring performance. The report concludes that all YOTs need access to a mental health specialist. YOTs and CAMHS need to have cohesive working arrangements that include representation on YOT management boards, YOT representation within CAMHS strategic planning forums and joint monitoring and review of service provision. Reviews of CAMHS should consider extending the provision of services for young people up to 18 years of age. Despite changes to YOT key performance indicators it would be helpful for YOTs and the Welsh Assembly Government to continue to monitor the mental health needs of young people.
Subject terms:
mental health care, mental health problems, social care provision, young offenders, young people, youth justice, youth offending teams, child and adolescent mental health services, criminal justice;
The focus of this report is the treatment of vulnerable defendants within the criminal courts of England and Wales. In Chapters 1 to 4 existing provision for vulnerable adult defendants, especially those with learning disabilities, are reviewed. Chapters 5 to 9 concentrate on child defendants aged between 10 and 17, all vulnerable because of their age but many due to, for example, communication and emotional difficulties can be viewed doubly vulnerable. Integral to the Prison Reform Trusts’ No One Knows’ and ‘Out of Trouble’ programs and in the context of the Bradley review and ‘Improving Health, Supporting Justice’ both published in 2009, this report considers to what extent offenders with mental health problems or learning disabilities and children, who may find the language of court difficult, can be protected from standard proceedings by implementing court liaison and diversion arrangements which will support them through the criminal justice system or into health and social care. Seven recommendations to improve are made for vulnerable adults and ten for vulnerable children. The Norwich Combined Courts Assessment scheme, mental health courts pilots in Brighton and Stratford, the Liverpool Investigations Support Unit and the youth justice liaison and diversion pilots are presented, by the authors, as examples of good practice.
The focus of this report is the treatment of vulnerable defendants within the criminal courts of England and Wales. In Chapters 1 to 4 existing provision for vulnerable adult defendants, especially those with learning disabilities, are reviewed. Chapters 5 to 9 concentrate on child defendants aged between 10 and 17, all vulnerable because of their age but many due to, for example, communication and emotional difficulties can be viewed doubly vulnerable. Integral to the Prison Reform Trusts’ No One Knows’ and ‘Out of Trouble’ programs and in the context of the Bradley review and ‘Improving Health, Supporting Justice’ both published in 2009, this report considers to what extent offenders with mental health problems or learning disabilities and children, who may find the language of court difficult, can be protected from standard proceedings by implementing court liaison and diversion arrangements which will support them through the criminal justice system or into health and social care. Seven recommendations to improve are made for vulnerable adults and ten for vulnerable children. The Norwich Combined Courts Assessment scheme, mental health courts pilots in Brighton and Stratford, the Liverpool Investigations Support Unit and the youth justice liaison and diversion pilots are presented, by the authors, as examples of good practice.
Subject terms:
law courts, learning disabilities, mental health problems, sentences, vulnerable adults, vulnerable children, youth justice, criminal justice;
Few young Finns are incarcerated, compared with their counterparts in England and Wales. This article reports on a comparative study between the youth justice system in Finland and England and Wales. It also provides details of the range and regimes of residential institutions for troubled and troublesome children and young people in Finland.
Few young Finns are incarcerated, compared with their counterparts in England and Wales. This article reports on a comparative study between the youth justice system in Finland and England and Wales. It also provides details of the range and regimes of residential institutions for troubled and troublesome children and young people in Finland.
Subject terms:
mental health problems, residential child care, sentences, substance misuse, young offenders, youth justice, comparative studies, custodial institutions;
hospital social work, medical social work, medical social workers, looked after children, mental health problems, mental health services, multidisciplinary services, offenders, older people, physical disabilities, private foster care, residential care, residential child care, registers, social work, social work education, social worker-service user relationships, terminal illness, user participation, transracial adoption, transracial foster care, visual impairment, youth justice, anti-discriminatory practice, black and minority ethnic people, case records, care homes, child protection, community care, children, employment, equal opportunities;