On 2 March at the T2A National Conference, human rights theatre company, ice&fire, performed an original script created verbatim from the words of young adults who have been supported by three of the T2A Pathway projects.

Six 18-25 year olds were interviewed by researchers in January and February this year, and the transcripts from these were cut down into a 20 minute script, before being performed by professional young actors.

This powerful and moving performance highlighted many of the important issues related to young adults involved in the criminal justice process, including young adults’ views on the causes of their offending behaviour, regret for the harm caused, their willingness to change, the consistency of family breakdown, and their good and bad experiences of police, courts and prison.

You can view the 20 minute performance below.

A new report by INQUEST ‘Stolen Lives and Missed Opportunities: The deaths of young adults and children in prison’ for T2A Alliance – has found “a litany of systemic neglect, institutional complacency and shortsighted policies” which have contributed to the deaths of 65 young adults and children in custody between January 2011 and 31 December 2014.

This shocking report argues for a fundamental rethink about the use of prison for children and young adults that requires political boldness and a more steadfast willingness to implement evidence-based change.   According to the report the vulnerabilities of young prisoners have been well documented, yet they continue to be sent to unsafe environments, with scarce resources and staff untrained to deal with, and respond humanely to, the particular and complex needs of young adults and children.

At a practical level, establishments do not seem to have learned lessons from previous deaths in prisons; too many deaths occur because the same mistakes are made time and again.  This in turn raises questions about the adequacy of the investigation, inspection and monitoring systems and the process of accountability for institutions.   The report makes a number of recommendations for change, including:

• Prisons should be used only as a last resort for those who present a significant risk to others.
• In the event that prison is deemed necessary, investment is needed in local and smaller prison units, designed and designated specifically for the young adult age group, with an emphasis on therapeutic environments, interventions and more staff who are adequately trained and want to work with young prisoners.
• Most young adults will ‘grow out of crime’ if given opportunities and support to turn their lives around  The temporary nature of this stage of life should be taken into account in criminal justice responses, as should research that has highlighted the criminalising effect of imprisonment on this age group
• There should be a reallocation of resources away from imprisonment towards crime prevention, focusing on areas which destabilise an individual’s life – e.g. education, healthcare, social care and housing.
• Probation pre-sentence reports for 18-25 year olds should always include a specific section on a young adult’s maturity. Multi-disciplinary agencies in prisons and the community have a duty to share information about a young person’s vulnerability.
• A national database that all prisons can access should be set up to counter delays in documents and incomplete information arriving with prisoners.
• A central oversight body should be set up. This body would be tasked with collating, analysing critically, and constantly auditing across the relevant sectors, and report publicly on the accumulated learning from inquest outcomes and recommendations from PPO investigations, and HMIP/IMB recommendations pertinent to custodial health and safety.

Read a copy of the full report

A new report by academics at Greifswald Universitat in Germany commissioned by T2A,  finds that European justice systems have embraced the need for a distinct approach to young adults at all stages of the criminal justice.

The report ‘Better in Europe? European responses to young adult offending’ by Dr Ineke Pruin and Professor Frieder Dunkel looks at international criminological research and evidence and finds that in much of Europe the same regulations, procedures and legislation are applied to young adults (18-24) as to the under-18s.  The authors found that it is common practice in Europe, particularly in Germany and the Netherlands, for young adult offenders to be allowed to remain in the youth prison system into at least their early 20s.

However, the report  found no consensus around whether establishing separate penal institutions would be appropriate or advisable.

Almost all European justice systems have accepted that young adulthood should be reflected in criminal justice laws or practice, including Germany, where the report’s authors are based.

Read an executive summary of the report
Read the full report.

The briefing is the first in a series of ‘PCC spotlights’ being published by Revolving Doors Agency and the Transition to Adulthood Alliance (T2A) as part of the First Generation Project. The series will highlight promising practice among PCCs which could be replicated in other areas.

Young adults (18-24) are disproportionately likely to come into contact with the police, both as victims and offenders. They represent 10% of the population, but make up around a third of the probation caseload, a third of those sentenced to a community sentence each year and almost a third of those sent to prison.

Many of these young offenders have multiple and complex needs, but currently fall through gaps between youth and adult support services and face a social and criminal justice system that rarely takes account of their varying levels of maturity. High reoffending rates among young adult offenders show there is a need for improvement – around three quarters of young adults released from prison reoffend within two years.

The ‘PCC Spotlight’ briefing argues that PCCs should capitalise on their position to address these issues on a local basis, cutting across the youth and adults systems with their key strategic and commissioning role. In some areas PCCs are already doing this. For example:

• Leicestershire and Rutland – Where a multi-agency Young Adult’s Project (YAP!) was launched by the PCC Sir Clive Loader, taking a ’whole system‘ approach to implementing better responses for young adults across the criminal justice process.
• South Wales – Where the PCC Alun Michael is looking to extend “the principles of youth offending teams to young adults” and has piloted innovative new approaches to improve diversion of young adults from crime, and increase employment opportunities for ex-offenders.
• Gloucestershire – Where PCC Martin Surl has contributed to a range of community schemes for vulnerable “young people becoming adults” (including offenders and those at risk of getting involved in offending) through the Commissioning Fund

The briefing highlights common features of this work that other areas should consider in developing more effective approahces to young adult crime locally. This includes supporting tailoured interventions for those in the transition to adulthood, exploring opportunities for effective diversion of young adults, and bringing a range of partners together at a strategic level to tackle this issue.

Whether or not the PCC model survives the next election, there is much to learn from how different areas have sought to improve responses for young adults.

Leicestershire PCC Sir Clive Loader said:

“It is vitally important that we better understand young adults and take into account their developing maturity and specific needs. The process of becoming an adult can be fraught with difficulties and is a risky time, particularly for those young adults already involved in the criminal justice system due to their backgrounds. Partners and I are working together to achieve better outcomes amongst this age group and, as a result, see a dramatic change in those offending and re-offending.”

Vicki Helyar-Cardwell, Director of Research and Development at Revolving Doors Agency said:

“Police and crime commissioners remain a controversial addition to the local landscape. However, as this briefing shows, there is much to learn from the experience of the first generation of PCCs so far, and much that different areas can learn from each other in tackling challenging issues such as young adult crime and reoffending.”

The briefing is available here: http://www.revolving-doors.org.uk/documents/pcc-spotlight-young-adults/

For further information, please contact: Shane Britton, Policy Manager, Revolving Doors Agency. Email:[email protected] , Tel: 020 7940 9743

The governor of New York (Andrew Cuomo, pictured) yesterday announced a major reform programme in the way that young people are managed by the CJS there.

The headline is that the age of adulthood will move from 16 to 18 in increments over the next 3 years, to bring New York in line with 48 out of 49 other US states.

Of particular pertinence on the young adult agenda is the proposal to “Prohibit the confinement of youth in any adult jail or prison setting and allow youth to remain in juvenile settings until age 21.”

The governor will now propose the full set of recommendations as a legislative package to the State Assembly. The package would ultimately have to be passed and signed into law to become effective.

The full report is here:

https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/ReportofCommissiononYouthPublicSafetyandJustice.pdf

Within it is a fascinating section on maturity and brain development, and it is compelling in how close it is to T2A’s work, using mostly US sources (pp. 17-19):

ADOLESCENTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM ADULTS: BRAIN SCIENCE AND CULPABILITY

Over the last 15 years, an uncontroverted body of research has emerged demonstrating that the brain does not reach maturation until early adulthood, with certain types of adult cognitive abilities not fully developed until the mid-20s. The differences between adolescents and adults can be categorized into three important areas:

self-regulation, particularly in emotionally charged contexts; sensitivity to peer influence and immediate rewards; and ability to make decisions that require an orientation toward the future.

 The distinction between these aspects of adult reasoning or decision making and basic cognitive ability is critical. Research shows that even by early adolescence, some cognitive abilities in young people mirror those of adults. However, although cognitive ability guides the process of decision making, other elements of reasoning determine the decision outcomes.

 The basic structure of the brain and the order in which each part develops offer clues that may help describe the origin of these differences. A comprehensive report published by the National Academy of Sciences summarizes the imbalance in these systems:

“Evidence of significant changes in brain structure and function during adolescence strongly suggests that these cognitive tendencies characteristic of adolescents are associated with biological immaturity of the brain and with an imbalance among developing brain systems.

” This imbalance model implies dual systems: one involved in cognitive and behavioral control and one involved in socioemotional processes. Accordingly, adolescents lack mature capacity for self-regulation because the brain system that influences pleasure-seeking and emotional reactivity develops more rapidly than the brain system that supports self-control.”

More colloquially, the pediatrician and developmental psychologist Ronald Dahl has quipped that “adolescents develop an accelerator a long time before they can steer and brake.”

Self-regulation, or the ability to control one’s emotions and behavior in the moment in order to achieve longer term gains, has been shown to increase throughout adolescence and into young adulthood. These skills are especially weak for adolescents when the situation requires them to suppress a response to an emotional cue, especially for adolescent boys. This inability to delay gratification has been proposed by some theorists as an organizing principle related to criminal behavior for people of all ages, and adolescents may be particularly, and developmentally, vulnerable.

Research also reveals that, in addition to delays in the capacity to self-regulate, adolescents have impaired ability to appreciate the long-term consequences of their actions and are highly influenced by the potential for immediate reward. This can be interpreted as an adolescent lack of identification of, or even a tendency actively to seek out, risk. However, studies show that adolescents and adults are similar in their ability to understand a situation’s risks; the distinction lies in how they evaluate risks and rewards. In a decisionmaking situation, adolescents tend to be more sensitive than adults in valuing what the potential reward may be, and less sensitive to any potential costs.

 A particularly compelling reward for adolescents is the approval of their peers: adolescents are more likely to have their behavior influenced by peers than are adults. Research in brain development now documents what has long been conventional wisdom: that adolescents inherently value peer approval above many other rewards, and their “consequent fear of rejection” influences their choices. In fact, the influence of the group is strong for adolescents even in instances when their peers are not overtly suggesting they should engage in a certain action. It has been shown that mere “peer presence” rather than “peer pressure” can create changes in their behavior. As a result, it is perhaps not surprising that adolescents often commit crimes in groups.

Though peers may greatly influence adolescents’ behavior while they are young, as they mature and transition to adulthood, they begin to develop a greater sense of autonomy, and the influence of the peer group wanes.

These two differences, immature self-control abilities and sensitivity to immediate reward, converge in the third difference: the impaired ability to make judgments that require future orientation. The ability to appreciate the long-term consequences of a decision, postpone gratification by immediate reward, and resist influences like emotion and peers, develops throughout adolescence and into young adulthood. As

Dr. Edward Mulvey stated in his testimony before the Commission, this sound body of substantial research is proving what every parent knows about adolescents: immature decision making persists throughout adolescence. The brain research provides a strong developmental explanation for this phenomenon.

A few of the highlights among the 38 recommendations include:

• Raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction to 17 by January, 2017 and to 18 by January 2018, moving all 16 and 17 year olds charged with non-violent felonies, misdemeanors and violation to Family Court.
• Raise the lower age of juvenile jurisdiction from 7 to 12 except for homicide, where the age would be set at 10.
• Reform criminal court processing for violent and JO felonies of 16-17 yr olds, including a new presumption for removal to family court for violent felonies that are not JO cases.
• Create dedicated Youth Parts for all higher level offenses that remain in criminal court, complete with extensive judicial training, access to age appropriate resources and a youth-centered approach.
• Grant concurrent jurisdictional for criminal court judges overseeing the Youth Parts so they may retain cases removed to family court and handle the cases under the Family Court Act, where appropriate.
• Provide juvenile probation services and case management for juvenile cases pending in criminal court Youth Parts.
• Expand the criteria for adjustment to include some felonies and JO cases.
• Mandate diversion/adjustment attempts for most low risk misdemeanor cases.
• Prohibit the confinement of youth in any adult jail or prison setting and allow youth to remain in juvenile settings until age 21.
• Reduce all unnecessary detention of youth including prohibition of detention and placement of low risk youth adjudicated for first and/or second time non-violent misdemeanors, and prohibition of placement for most technical probation violations alone.
• Create community based family support centers for improved PINS-related service coordination.
• Create new specialized residential placement services for older teenagers with special needs, including expanded RTF capacity.
• Expand and improve reentry efforts to reduce recidivism for juveniles in a host of ways.
• Improve Youthful Offender protections be establishing new presumptions for YO status if there is no prior felony,   among other procedural changes and improvements.
• Create a new capacity to seal one JO conviction under certain conditions.
• Improve digital communication systems and procedures to ensure that juvenile records are sealed consistently.

A new report on the over-representation of young black and/or Muslim men in the criminal justice system says that critically high numbers have been reached.  The Young Review, led by Baroness Lola Young of Hornsey, found that despite knowledge and understanding of this problem at the highest level, there has not to date been sufficient leadership or concerted effort to address this over-representation.  The report found that black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) offenders are more likely to serve a prison sentence and receive harsher treatment in  prison than their white counterparts.  It argued that if the Government is truly committed to reducing reoffending, making communities safer and reducing victims of crime, then the disproportionate outcomes experienced by young black and/or Muslim male prisoners and offenders in the community must be tackled.

The review highlights the specific experiences and needs of young black and/or Muslim men in the criminal justice system, whose lives are often characterised by a complex mix of educational, employment, health and social inequalities. It sets out a series of recommendations that aim to ensure that action takes place – in what will soon be a newly-configured Criminal Justice System under the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms – to address unequal outcomes from prison to resettlement.

The Young Review recommends that mechanisms must be developed to incentivise criminal justice agencies and the new providers of probation services to meet the specific needs of these young men. The outcomes achieved by these providers must be rigorously monitored on how they tackle inequality- and not just reduce reoffending.

Representatives and organisations from BAME communities, working in partnership with the criminal justice system, were found to improve prisoners’ perceptions of and relationships with institutions. The review calls for an emphasis on dedicated resources for community engagement. Organisations and individuals including offenders and ex-offenders themselves, with an understanding of the lived experience of this group, should also play an integral role in the planning and delivery of services.

Read a copy of the report here

The High Court has declared that the Government’s ban on sending books to prisoners in England and Wales is unlawful.  The ban on sending books into prison was brought in in November 2013, as part of the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme, which stated that prisoners are not allowed to receive parcels unless they have “exceptional circumstances” such as a medical condition.  The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has said that the thinking behind the changes was to crack down on the amount of drugs getting into prison.

Prisoners had argued that books sent to them in parcels could contribute to rehabilitation.  A judicial review of the rule was brought by prisoner Barbara Gordon-Jones, a life sentence prisoners at HMP Send, near Woking in Surrey.

Mr Justice Collins ruled that there was “no good reason in the light of the importance of books for prisoners to restrict beyond what is required by volumetric control and reasonable measures relating to frequency of parcels and security considerations.”  There is no specific ban on  books in the IEP but the severity of the restrictions could clearly prevent acquisition and possession.   Whilst Mr Justice Collins acknowledged that in some prisons there is good access to a well-stocked prison library, he also recognised that this is by no means the case for all prisoners and commented that “to refer to them as a privilege is strange”.

The restriction was declared unlawful by Mr Justice Collins because the policy’s effect was contrary to what Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, said he intended.

The High Court has declared that the Government’s ban on sending books to prisoners in England and Wales is unlawful.

The ban on sending books into prison was brought in in November 2013, as part of the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme, which stated that prisoners are not allowed to receive parcels unless they have “exceptional circumstances” such as a medical condition.  The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has said that the thinking behind the changes was to crack down on the amount of drugs getting into prison.

Prisoners had argued that books sent to them in parcels could contribute to rehabilitation.  A judicial review of the rule was brought by prisoner Barbara Gordon-Jones, a life sentence prisoners at HMP Send, near Woking in Surrey.

Mr Justice Collins ruled that there was “no good reason in the light of the importance of books for prisoners to restrict beyond what is required by volumetric control and reasonable measures relating to frequency of parcels and security considerations.”  There is no specific ban on  books in the IEP but he argued that the severity of the restrictions could clearly prevent acquisition and possession.   Whilst Mr Justice Collins acknowledged that in some prisons there is good access to a well-stocked prison library, he also recognised that this is by no means the case for all prisoners and commented that “to refer to them as a privilege is strange”.   The restriction was declared unlawful by Mr Justice Collins because the policy’s effect was contrary to what Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, said he intended.

Youth Justice Minister Andrew Selous, appeared recently before the Justice Select Committee, revealing that NOMS is in the process of developing a tool to assess the maturity of offenders.  He said: “sometimes I think we focus on the actual age in years, but … there is a serious piece of work to be done about the level of maturity with these people we are talking about”.

View here (from 10.30.20) http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=16663

MPs at the Justice Select Committee had been told by Michael Spurr, chief executive of NOMS (National Offenders Management Service) that the Government is considering creating prisons for 18-30 years as part of attempts to improve the secure estate.  Spurr told the Committee that the change was one of a number of possible arrangements being considered in the wake of the Government shelving plans to place 18-21-year-olds with the general prison population.

Proposals unveiled in November 2013 recommended that any young person aged over 18 sentenced to custody, including those who turn 18 while in youth custody, should be sent to an adult prison.  However, the Government stalled the plans following consultation which found strong opposition to the plans from the YJB, and the voluntary sector, and is now delaying making a final decision until the Harris review into self-inflicted deaths of 18-24-year-olds is published in Spring 2015.

Michael Spurr told MPs that although he would personally support the move towards ending the distinction between 18-21-year-olds and adults, he is not necessarily keen to move away from having “specialist establishments for younger people”.  He told the Committee that trials are currently taking place in establishments where younger adults are held alongside the general adult population, including creating prisons for 18-30-year-olds, but that no final decision had been made about what arrangements are the most effective.

T2A Chair, Joyce Moseley, gave evidence to the Justice Select Committee’s inquiry into prison planning and policies on 24 November, alongside Lin Hinnigan, Chief Executive of the YJB, Gareth Jones, Chair of the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers, and Penelope Gibbs, Chair of the Standing Committee on Youth Justice.

The panel responded to questions from MPs on a range of issues related to youth justice, including the proposals for a Secure College, youth to adult transitions and allocation of resources.

You can watch it here.