Increasingly, foundations are showing an interest in systems change work as a means of achieving greater impact when tackling intractable issues. In this new report ‘Funding for systems change: The story of Barrow Cadbury Trust’s Transition to Adulthood Campaign’, IVAR and Barrow Cadbury Trust explore the conditions needed for this model of working.

In this blog, Ben Cairns, Director at IVAR and Sara Llewellin, Chief Executive at Barrow Cadbury Trust, offer their reflections for others to sense check whether they have – or even want to develop – those conditions.

Ben

Increasingly, foundations are showing an interest in systems change work as a means of achieving greater impact when tackling intractable issues. From our point of view this is to be welcomed. In this report, IVAR and BCT have attempted to explore the conditions needed for this model of working. We offer this for others to sense check whether they have – or even want to develop – those conditions.

Telling the story of Transition to Adulthood (T2A) – Barrow Cadbury Trust’s collaborative criminal justice campaign making the case to policy makers, practitioners and sentencers for a distinct approach for young adults (18 to 25-year-olds) – presented an opportunity to press pause, and do a deep dive. It also felt like a good fit with our wider work on facilitating shifts towards more open and trusting grant-making.

As researchers, the story makes a compelling case for funders to be active in systems change. It might be different and difficult, but the gains can be profound and significant. But there is also much that may alarm those interested. The field expertise required to work in this way; the uncertainty and unpredictability around success; the open-ended nature of the commitment; the complexity of the collaboration – most or all of these are a far cry from traditional grant programmes. It reminds us that systems change isn’t for the faint-hearted, for people in a hurry, or for people who prefer order and certainty of outcome. It’s messy, it’s erratic, and you’re never really sure what’s just around the corner.

Our intention, though, is not just to deter or discourage. Trusts and foundations – with their wealth of assets and their independence – are uniquely placed to support systems change They have the money, the time, and the patience. They can afford to take risks, to shift power, to disrupt. To play a leading role, like Barrow Cadbury Trust, or to be a patient cheerleader. All of these choices – to do it well and thoroughly – are in their gift.

Sara

At Barrow Cadbury Trust we see ourselves as actors in civil society, not just supporters of it. We are rooted in the social justice values of Quakerism, although of all faiths and none. We work purposefully to tackle the root causes as well as manifestations of injustice, alongside coalitions and ecologies of others who share our desire for change.

However, working like this demands a number of conditions which are significantly different to those which many foundations can provide. By setting them out here we hope they will prove useful to others either considering or embarking on this kind of work for the first time. The most important of these is a long time horizon: real systemic or structural change takes many different hands working together over a long period.

Rest assured, we do not think that this is the ‘right’ or the ‘better’ way. It’s a way and it’s our way but there are many ways to assist changemakers and this is just one of them. What matters is that we each do deliberately and consistently what we can do best.

This is a repost of a joint blog co-hosted on the Barrow Cadbury Trust and IVAR websites.

T2A Chair Leroy Logan MBE reflects on the findings of the Alliance for Youth Justice’s (AYJ) briefing paper on the transition from the youth to adult justice system – focusing on the experiences of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic young people.

A spotlight on racial disparities

As the briefing suggests, young people who turn 18 while in contact with the justice system face a steep cliff edge. Studies show that this age is a crucial turning point where many young people begin to desist from crime with the right support and interventions. But rather than take advantage of this capacity for change, statutory services fall away. For Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic young people, the transition to the adult justice system can be even more challenging.

This latest briefing from AYJ has cast a harsh spotlight on the failings of our justice system to address the racial disparities that have blighted many young people’s lives. From an early age, many Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic young people find themselves associated with criminal stereotypes. Labelling young people in this way is incredibly damaging, eroding self-belief and making it harder to move towards a pro-social identity.

Once Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic children enter the justice system, they are less likely to be diverted, more likely to receive harsher sentences, and more likely to be sent to custody, sentenced or on remand, compared to white children¹.

“Guilty before proven innocent… you kind of learn authority figures don’t actually care.”

Young Person

This can create a huge gulf in understanding and trust between Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic young adults and the professionals working in the system.

Sadly, these findings confirm what many of us working in the sector already expected. That’s why I welcome AYJ drilling down into the causes of this crisis, and what needs to change to deliver better outcomes.

Too often, we focus solely on what’s not working and forget that we must create a roadmap for the future we wish to see.

An overstretched and under resourced system

It’s clear that even with a diverse workforce, culturally competent training, and the best will in the world, the probation service is struggling to keep its head above water.

A professional quoted in the briefing had this to say:

“Record levels of staff sickness, extended sick leave, people fleeing the service in droves – that then exacerbates every other issue we have. We can’t be ambitious, we can’t be progressive, we can’t make many changes if you’re barely able to keep the regime running.”

There are many admirable professionals working in the system who want to do better for young adults, but they don’t have the time, resources, or support to implement creative approaches.

Without sufficient investment, the system can barely meet young adults’ basic needs – let alone support them to take steps towards a more positive future.

Collaboration with the VCSE sector

In this depressing climate, the work of voluntary and community organisations has become even more vital.

Specialist Black and Ethnic Minority-led organisations have an intimate understanding of the communities Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic young people come from and how their experiences inform their behaviour and identity. As the research highlights, these grassroots organisations are well placed to provide nuanced support that recognises these young people’s overlapping needs – support that statutory services would struggle to provide.

These organisations are also more likely to have lived experience embedded in their staff and support services, meaning they can provide peer mentoring and positive role models – both of which are essential components in facilitating the shift towards a pro-social identity.

Ring-fenced funding to commission specialist organisations

I believe that we could take this further by developing a model where specialist Black and Minority-Ethnic led grassroots organisations are commissioned to operate services in their communities. Funding would be ring fenced for these local organisations who have the expertise to deliver the best outcomes.

This model could be supported by local roundtables where information and knowledge are shared regularly so that young adults can access support from multiple agencies. Meeting in this way will also help criminal justice agencies better understand how these organisations are well placed to support young adults. Having buy in from all partners will be vital to the success of this model.

The Newham Transition to Adulthood Hub is a great example of how this approach can work in practice. They have a wide variety of services in one space, so staff can consult each other on individual cases and referrals to different services are much easier and more efficient. Regular spotlight sessions are held where different teams share their expertise and explain how their services can benefit young adults.

Grassroots organisations excluded from funding opportunities

Unfortunately, the AYJ’s report found that organisations with strong community links and knowledge are effectively excluded from funding opportunities. They lack the resources to compete with larger organisations who can meet the excessive commissioning processes and compliance requirements demanded by the Ministry of Justice and HMPPS.

However, many of these larger organisations lack the knowledge and cultural competence to successfully deliver these services. Shockingly, they often subcontract their services at a lower rate to the very grassroots organisations that have been denied a place at the table.

It is crucial that the Ministry of Justice and HMPPS immediately reform VCS funding allocation so that specialist Black and Minority-Ethnic led grassroots organisations can build the capacity of their services – ensuring every young person receives age-appropriate, trauma-informed, culturally competent services that reflect their entire lived experience.

Bridging gaps and changing tracks

Alliance for Youth Justice briefing on supporting racially minoritised young people transitioning from the youth to adult justice system.

Read report

1. xxvii Microsoft Word – BAME research report_final_v4.docx (publishing.service.gov.uk); Centre for Justice Innovation (2021) Equal diversion? Racial disproportionality in youth diversion; JUSTICE (2021) Tackling Racial Injustice – Children and the Youth Justice System ↩︎

We spoke to Stephanie Curtis, HMPPS Custody Improvement lead, about her master’s research project titled Growing up in custody: the importance of supportive relationships for adolescent men serving long-term sentences.

Steph recently completed a master’s degree in Applied Criminology, Penology and Management at Cambridge University in partnership with HMPPS. She has worked in the youth estate for many years, and a lot of her work focused on the transition period when young people move from the youth to the adult estate.

“It was always an interest of mine. In my first role, I got two phone calls about children in one day. One guy was 16 and he got a life sentence with a 25-year-old tariff. I just thought, ‘God, how will he cope with that? What must he be feeling?’

“I got a call about a girl later in the day who also received a long sentence. She was only 13 or 14. I remember thinking to myself that all those teenage experiences you go through, learning things from peers and family, they’re not going to get any of that.”

These experiences prompted Steph to undertake a research project into the experiences of young men who have long-term and life sentences. Her specific focus was on the importance of supportive relationships, and the key role they play in helping young men remain resilient and positive in custody.

“I interviewed 10 men, aged between 26 and 37, who had all served one continuous period of custody since the age of 18. The shortest was 12 years long, and the longest was 20 years plus.”

The interviews covered life skills, emotional and physical development, and identity.

“I knew how to cook before, but I believe I am better in prison. So when I first had access to onions and oil and cooking facilities, as you know in prison before you get to a spur, and in certain jails you have to cook in a kettle, as mad as that sounds you know the flat bit at the bottom you put oil, garlic and peppers, make sure its finely cut, turn it on, you might have to hold it on, and fry it up and add seasoning. (Ali, interviewee)

Nearly all the young men were passionate about exercise, which played a key role in cementing friendships with their peers.

“Most of the men I spoke to discussed weight training. There is quite a lot of research that looks at when you physically train with a friend, that the camaraderie you build is really strong. You get improved self-confidence and there’s a mutual dopamine hit that you get together and a sense of achievement.”

Stephanie was keen to investigate how a prolonged period of custody had affected these young men’s sense of agency. She found that there was quite a divergence in the interview group in their levels of independence and self-efficacy.

“I asked all the participants: ‘What was the biggest decision you’ve had to make in your life?’

“Some said, ‘I don’t get to make any decisions, I’m told what to do.’ But others had a real sense of agency and purposefully took courses, so they have a better chance of getting a job when they get out.

“The young men ranged from the fiercely independent, who often didn’t have family connections, to those with turbulent childhoods, who had often come to depend or rely on the rules. Some of the men interviewed struggled to deal with life in open conditions.”

“I first went to the TC when I was 21, but I didn’t, basically I just fucked about there so I left. I struggled, I tried to do it here twice, I came back, and I stayed out of trouble.” (David, interviewee)

All the participants were asked about their experience of the transition from the youth to the adult estate. Interestingly, most remarked that this hadn’t been a particularly formative or challenging event.

“When I pressed on the transition issue, the men reflected on the fact that they had moved around a lot, so it hadn’t felt as significant. The one person who did move only a few times felt that he was well prepared for that transition.”

Despite the challenges of living in custody long term, most of the young men had developed significant emotional and life skills.

“In an icebreaker I asked each of the men to describe themselves in three words. These came up repeatedly: ‘loyal, caring, family man, humble’.”

Positive family relationships provided the most valuable practical and emotional support, so ensuring these support networks are maintained is crucial. Steph believes that technology could be more effectively utilised in the future to help young adults with long-term sentences stay connected to their families.

We spoke to Tracy Hammond​, Research and Innovation Director at KeyRing, and Paul*, who has a mild learning disability, about how we can divert neurodiverse young adults away from the criminal justice system.

Paul is 60 years old and resides in supported living accommodation. When he was a child, there were multiple opportunities to ensure he didn’t get involved in the criminal justice system. But these opportunities were not taken up, and he was let down repeatedly by a system that did not cater to his needs.

Paul explains: “My childhood wasn’t very good. I was taken into care at the age of two because I was being abused by my brother and his friend.

“I ended up going to a special school, but then I was being abused again. So, I was put into a care home. I was 12 when I did my first offence and I ended up going to another place, testing centre, then back into the court, then back into a children’s home.”

Paul attended a special educational needs school, so his learning disability was formally recognised. However, it’s painfully clear that he didn’t get the right support from statutory services and that his early years were fraught with unpredictability, abuse, trauma, and neglect.

Tracey adds: “Paul’s 60 now, and he’s been through the justice system for most of his life. But the opportunity was there when he received his diagnosis as a child to get him the right support.

“If that had happened, he wouldn’t have ended up trapped in the system.”

At 16, Paul was convicted of arson. He spent a year at HM Prison Risley before successfully appealing his case. It was a harrowing experience for Paul because no attention was given to his additional needs. He didn’t even understand at first that he had received a prison sentence.

Paul adds: “I’d never been in prison. I was put into this cell, and I didn’t know where we were. He [prison officer] took the clothes off me, and I got quite abusive to them because I had obviously been abused myself. I just sat there thinking am I allowed to go to sleep? I were terrified.”

“From there I was put onto the hospital wing. I thought we’re going to a hospital somewhere. Anyway, they took me onto this wing, and it was just convicted murders. If you got done for murder, you went to the hospital wing. I was just gone 16.”

“They did have a wing there for young people, but I think it was the nature of the sentence and they must have thought I was suicidal. I saw that’s why they put me in there. I were a mess.”

On leaving prison, he moved regularly between secure units before returning to an abusive home at the age of 19. For a while he had some social care support, but Paul found it challenging to live with his alcoholic father.

Paul ended up back in contact with the justice system and at 21 he received a probation order for burglary and theft. While still on probation, he was arrested for a burglary he still maintains he didn’t do. However, he was too afraid to disclose the real offenders, so he served two and a half years in prison and left just before his 25th birthday. He then had a string of convictions before committing a serious offence at age 26 which saw him sentenced to 12 years in a secure hospital.

Paul believes that neurodivergent young adults can be diverted from the justice system, if the appropriate support networks are in place.

“If I’d had the support, and if I’d had the right people looking after me, I wouldn’t have got convicted. I would have had someone to talk to, refer me for mental health support, and I wouldn’t have had to make such a drastic cry for help.”

Since Paul’s involvement in the justice system, there have been vast advances in our understanding of neurodiversity. Organisations like KeyRing and the National Autistic Society (NAS) have been building the evidence base in this field for many years, and the 2021 Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorate Report ‘Neurodiversity in the Criminal Justice System’ was a landmark publication.

Furthermore, both KeyRing and NAS have been funded by the Barrow Cadbury Trust to carry out research into the specific needs of neurodivergent young adults and how to effectively support them.

Despite this, Tracy sees many young neurodiverse adults ending up in the criminal justice system rather than being diverted into appropriate support networks.

“I started to think about what happened to Paul and asked myself if this could still happen today? I’m absolutely certain it could. I think children still do very poorly in care. The care system almost sets children up to go to prison.

“The other thing is that children who are neurodivergent often just can’t face school. School is set up for neurotypical people. It’s very busy. There’s everything from sensory overload to the social interaction all the time, and the need to perform in this environment is difficult for neurodiverse people.

“And of course, if they’re not going to school, you’ve then got two problems. One is that signs of abuse are not going to be picked up, and the other is the potential for young people to find their way into criminal activities – and this isn’t going to be picked up either. A particular worry is that they could be exploited and targeted for county lines drug supply rings.”

And when young neurodiverse people transition into the adult justice system, the few support structures they have – and desperately need – fall away. Tracy explains:

“Suddenly, they must take responsibility for things like making their own appointments. They’re becoming an adult, yes, but they are still the same person with potentially unrecognised neurodivergent conditions that make these things inherently difficult.

“If your additional needs affect your ability to remember appointments, for example, you’re now being punished for missing meetings rather than supported to turn up for things. That’s just plain unhelpful, and it creates the wrong kind of atmosphere to look at any other reasons behind offending behaviour.”

KeyRing believe that all statutory services working with neurodivergent young adults must consider their whole experience – and the consequences that might arise if appropriate support is not provided.

“It’s not enough to say yes, they can make a friend, therefore they don’t need support with social interaction. Can they form a friendship that is healthy and reciprocal rather than one which is manipulative and will lead them into trouble?

“I’ve worked with people who take one look at a police uniform, and you know, colloquially speaking, they kick off. They weren’t born with that extremity of reaction.

“In order to understand these behaviours and somebody’s entire range of needs, we need access to good diagnostic services.

“One of the things I have learnt talking to neurodivergent people is that, if they are able to see themselves in the diagnosis that they receive, they’re much more likely to be able to deal with the way their own brain works and to move on with their lives.”

*Paul is a pseudonym used to protect the individual’s identity

KeyRing – Fairer Justice For All

Read the full report

Clare Hughes, Criminal Justice Coordinator at The National Autistic Society (NAS), believes the most pressing challenge neurodivergent young adults face today is accessing support from local health and social care services.

“Lots of young people are sitting on a waiting list for a diagnosis, or on a waiting list for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), or some sort of intervention. We’re leaving it longer and longer and longer before we’re able to respond.”

With their needs left unmet, neurodivergent young adults end up coming into contact with the criminal justice system – a system ill-equipped to provide the tailored support required.

“I’ve had lots of conversations with the police where they’re saying that they don’t have the training or the skills or the expertise to help these kids.

“That is a real worry because it’s not addressing the issue, which isn’t necessarily a criminal issue, but it will become one. That underlying issue is most often an unmet need, and we will never be able to address that through the criminal justice system. Nor should we.”

The National Autistic Society, and other voluntary sector organisations, recognise that the current situation will mean that many neurodivergent young adults are ending up in the system without an official diagnosis or a recognition of the additional support they require. That’s why working in partnership with HMPPS is vital, and the charity has been contracted to work with probation services in the North West, Yorkshire and Humber, and the South West.

“We provide training and facilitate reflective practice sessions so staff are able, as a group, to discuss the people they’ve worked with, what they’ve learned from those experiences, and things that they might be struggling with.”

The National Autistic Society also takes referrals and works directly with the probation officers and young adults. Working in this way helps cement the learnings from training into real-life practice.

“We are able to do direct pieces of work with the person on probation and the practitioner, which is really important because training only goes so far. That way, the practitioner gets an understanding of why we might go in with one idea and then totally switch it up and try something different to better suit that young adult’s needs.”

While Clare believes progress has been made in these areas, she is saddened that many neurodivergent young adults are coming through probation who simply shouldn’t be there in the first place.

“I’m finding this a really difficult process. Sometimes practitioners say to me, ‘I’ve got no idea how this person has ended up where they are. I can see that their needs are really significant, and I don’t think the criminal justice system is the right place for them.’”

Clare cites one particular case to illustrate how immensely challenging it can be for neurodivergent young adults to access support.

“James* is a young person who lived with his mum until he was about 19. His mum then said, ‘I just can’t do this anymore. I’m really struggling with his behaviour.’ She has done for a long time and hasn’t had any support from any services.”

James found school particularly challenging and, even though concerns were raised by staff about his behaviour, he didn’t receive an official diagnosis. Social care services assessed James as not requiring additional support, so he now lives on his own in a small flat.

“I wouldn’t even call it living. I would say he’s existing at the moment in a flat that is in a terrible state. Although he doesn’t live with his mum, she sees him every single day. He’s abusive to her as well and probation have said to her that they don’t think it’s wise for her to go to his flat.

“But James is her son at the end of the day, and he can’t look after himself. He can make toast and that is it, so she takes food for him each day. He can’t sort out his bills. He can’t manage day-to-day living. He lives in a room where the curtains are permanently drawn, and he just has a mattress on the floor.”

Even though James’s mental health is deteriorating, and he’s regularly self-harming, he still doesn’t meet the threshold for support.

“Mental health services have said he doesn’t meet the criteria. The worry that we’ve got is he’s on probation for another three months and he needs lots of support. He’s got two practitioners. He needs to be case managed by two people.”

Clare believes that James would meet the criteria for support from social services, but his anxiety can be triggered by face-to-face contact with new people, and social care services are unwilling to adapt their approach to meet his needs.

“He wants to have access to people socially, usually by phone, so he will ring people and he does want and need that. But he gets overwhelmed by face to face contact unless it’s somebody that he’s comfortable and familiar with, so fortunately he will let his two probation practitioners come to his home.”

James now requires such regular support that he calls his probation officers daily.

“They’ve managed it as best as they can, but this isn’t an appropriate way of dealing with this and what will happen when he’s no longer on probation?”

Clare believes that identifying neurodivergent young adults’ needs much earlier on will be key to diverting them from the justice system. This would require a multi-agency approach where different agencies, including partners from criminal justice, mental health, education and social care, come to the table to work together.

“It’s going to require people moving out of that mindset – that we’ve all been in for a long period of time – where we protect our own budget no matter what.

“The long-term gain would be that if we get in there early enough, we can reduce spending overall. For me, the argument that you need to be at crisis point before we do anything has never really made sense. To fix somebody at a point of crisis is always going to cost you more than it does when someone presents early on with more manageable needs that we can do something about.”

*James is a pseudonym used to protect the young adult’s identity

“My life could be so different”

Experiences of autistic young people in the youth justice system

Read the full report

Dr Ailbhe O’Loughlin, Senior Lecturer at York Law School, University of York, discusses the experiences of neurodiverse children and young people in the criminal justice system and how they can be supported to transition to the adult estate.

The terms neurodiversity or neurodivergence are used within the criminal justice system to describe neurodevelopmental disorders. At least one in three people in the criminal justice system are neurodivergent compared to one in six people in the general population. Rates are particularly high amongst children and young people aged 19 or under in custody.

Around 12% of children and young people in custody have attention deficit disorder or attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder and 15% have an autistic spectrum condition. Rates of learning disability range between 23% and 32%, rates of dyslexia range between 43% and 57%, and rates of communication disorders range between 60% and 90%. According to the Youth Justice Board, 72% of sentenced children have mental health needs and 71% have speech, language or communication needs.

Neurodivergence does not necessarily mean that a person is more likely to offend. While people diagnosed with ADHD are more likely to have contact with police and are at an increased risk of conviction and imprisonment, a diagnosis alone is not a significant risk factor for offending. People with autism spectrum disorder offend as frequently, or less frequently, than people without the condition. While people diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury are 2.3 times more likely to commit a violent offence than people without a diagnosis, this risk is significantly lower than that associated with alcohol or drug abuse.

Neurodivergence is often under-recognised. Neurodivergent children and young people may be prone to make inappropriate confessions or guilty pleas if processes are not adequately explained to them or they are not given enough time to process information. Their communication style or demeanour may be misinterpreted or viewed negatively by others in court. Busy, noisy environments may lead to distress, and trigger behaviours that are dealt with through segregation or physical restraint.

The primary aims of sentencing for children and young people are to prevent offending and to have regard to their welfare. Neurodivergence can be a mitigating factor in sentencing but it depends on these factors being identified. While youth rehabilitation orders are an option at sentencing, treatment or education requirements rely upon the availability of support services. Moreover, children and young people are more likely to breach such orders if they are not supported to understand them or to adhere to their requirements.

While youth justice services are more aware of neurodivergence than adult services, information is not routinely sent across when young people are transferred to the adult prison estate. Inadequate screening in many adult prisons may result in young people falling through the cracks. Recommendations for addressing these problems include improving support for families, improving screening processes and staff training in the education and youth justice systems, and introducing a ‘child first’ or ‘whole child’ approach. However, those who are convicted of offences after they turn 18 will be sentenced as adults: an outcome that may become more likely due to significant delays in the court system.

Neurodiverse young adults falling through the net – “A drastic cry for help”

Read more

We spoke to Jennifer Mustoe-Castle, Chief Operating Officer at 3Pillars Project, about their sports-based mentoring programme which supports young men in the criminal justice system.

3Pillars Project uses rugby and mentoring to engage young men in custody and the community to build a positive future for themselves. The charity was founded by Mike Crofts in 2015, who was inspired to set up the organisation while volunteering on a rugby programme in Feltham Young Offenders Institution.

“It struck him that a lot of the young guys there were similar to men he’d known in the military. Men who, if they hadn’t had that support and structure from the military, might have ended up on the same path to prison. But he saw that with support, guidance, and care, these young men could be successful.”

Mike recognised early on that this wasn’t simply about coaching these young men to play a sport. It was about using sport as a vehicle to provide structure, mentoring and the chance to develop positive values.

“We refer to it as a Trojan Horse because what you get out of it isn’t what you’d expect. Young men tell us they didn’t expect to come on the course and talk about resilience, controlled aggression and aiming high.

“Unsurprisingly, sport interventions have been found to reduce offending by 52 per cent, significantly cutting violent crime. But I’d argue it’s not the actual sport or newfound rugby skills that lead to this positive change. It’s having a youth work approach that focuses on each individual.

“By building self-awareness, these young guys are able to make better decisions. When describing the course we don’t lead with information about personal development as we know they wouldn’t sign up. But, often at the end of the course we are told that that’s where we have made the most positive impact with an individual.

The evidence we have gathered through T2A research, as well as that from government bodies and academic institutions, shows that between 18 and 25 the brain is still developing. This can present as unpredictable, risk-taking behaviour leading to involvement in the criminal justice system.

Speaking about how maturity affects the 3Pillars Project approach, Jen says:

“Psychosocial immaturity is prevalent in young men in custody or under probation supervision. This affects how they engage with and respond to prison regimes, probation licenses and supervision.

“Therefore, we have designed our programmes to provide support and structure for the transition from prison to community through development of life skills, employment training and help in finding employment, activities that encourage people to take responsibility and build a positive identity and opportunity to take on peer support roles.”

3Pillars supports young men at different stages of the justice system in London, the South East and the Midlands – starting in custody and then through resettlement and into sustained education, employment, or training. This approach is broken down into three distinct phases.

“We have three academies: Rugby, Fitness, and Leadership. The Rugby Academy is eight sessions over a week or 8 weeks, depending on the category of prison. We teach them how to play rugby, mindset workshops, and a level one Sports Leader qualification.

“During resettlement, they can join our Fitness Academy, which offers support, job placements, and mentoring. That way, they feel they’re coming out into something more settled – a pathway into education and training. Once people have achieved that, they stay part of our Leadership Academy.”

The core value of all three academies is to empower young men to develop positive values and behaviours.

“We work on the characteristics like empathy, resilience, controlled aggression, relationships – all of which contribute to our ultimate goal that people are in stable employment, education and training. Once people have that stability, they’re less likely to reoffend.”

Troy has recently been doing work experience with 3Pillars Project while on release on temporary license. Speaking of his experiences with the charity, he said:

“My experience throughout my time with 3Pillars has been life changing, allowing me to better myself and help others through the love of sports. Thanks to the organisation, I have gained more experience as well as a number of qualifications through courses and team building exercises that 3Pillars have provided for me”.

Many of the young men the charity supports are dealing with the impact of childhood trauma, which can resurface at different stages in their lives. That’s why 3Pillars Project remains available to offer advice and support whenever it’s needed, even years down the line.

“That trauma is almost always the trigger to reoffending. So, we make sure the young men we help know that they can always come back. It’s really important to us. We don’t have a fixed amount of time that we allocate to each person,” Jen adds.

3Pillars Project has recognised that staying the course with young men, who are caught in a cycle of reoffending, is key to building trust and changing entrenched negative behaviours.

“One person went back four times into custody, but now he has a job and has turned his life around. It’s not always a straight line, it’s not always linear.

“Some of the young men tell us that lots of people have given up on them during their lives. That’s why continuing to maintain a presence in these young men’s lives, through the ups and downs, can be a real game changer.”

Young men can be referred to the programme at different stages of the justice system, but Jen is keen to reach them as early on as possible. This ensures that 3Pillars Project can offer support throughout their time in custody and beyond, becoming a dependable and trusted source of advice and support.

“It’s so important that we do the eight weeks in custody and not just probation referrals. Young adults need that trusted person who will help them navigate the system. We’re there to coach them, not necessarily in sport, but on their journey. A lot of our training is about supporting people in their lives as a whole.”

Do you want to be kept up to date about all the latest young adult news?

Read our newsletter

Lisa Smitherman, Strategic Director of Justice & Education at Catch22, reflects on the findings of Why Me?’s latest report and explores how we can overcome the barriers that prevent young adults from accessing restorative justice.

Both awareness of, and accessibility to, service provision are two vital factors in being able to effectively engage people with a support service. Similarly, misconceptions of what a service is, or does, may impact and limit participation, particularly when working with young adults. The recent report published by Why Me?, which looks at the barriers to Restorative Justice (RJ) for young people, young adults, and victims of crime, highlights some key things to consider when implementing a RJ offering, to expand its reach and ensure its effectiveness. This blog will detail and discuss some of those considerations.

Prison and probation

A lack of awareness of RJ within custodial settings is highlighted in the report. Indeed, many young people and young adults in the custodial estate have never heard of RJ or have misconceptions of what it involves. At Catch22 we found that misconceptions, and a lack of collaboration between prison and probation teams, meant that access to RJ, between the secure estate and the community, can be disjointed. For us, providing a consistent RJ offer first requires the sector to address issues such as limited staffing capacity, clear understanding of the provision, and entitlements and barriers to information sharing.

Although the 2023 MOJ policy framework sets out the responsibilities of HMPPS regarding the provision of RJ, it could go further to drive a streamlined referral mechanism that could be adopted across prisons and probation to provide a more consistent approach. The importance of promoting restorative approaches, across both agencies, is something Catch22 strongly advocates for and recognises through a new pilot, launching in January 2024, at HMP Thameside. The pilot focuses on upskilling staff and prisoners to encourage a restorative environment. Using subject matter expertise within the custodial estate, the aim is to establish a strong understanding of RJ, ensure the most appropriate and effective options are in place, and to connect community provision with the secure estate.

Person-Centred Processes

Secondly, the Why Me? report highlights that although young adults in custody are interested in RJ, when that interest is coupled with the suspicion and distrust of authority that many of them experience, their curiosity alone is not strong enough to drive engagement. To begin to overcome this, it is vital for the RJ offer to be person-centred and showcased to them clearly and transparently. We must ensure that young adults in the justice system understand that RJ works to shift the focus from punishment to rehabilitation and offers an approach to self-transformation that they may not be used to; one which facilitates the development of empathy, responsibility, and accountability. For the young person, RJ directly includes them in the decision making process, giving them a voice that harnesses personal agency and ownership over their actions. With this in mind, the young person must be given the space and support to express any concerns or hesitations at any point in their journey. Enabling them to speak to others with lived experience of RJ, who can champion the process in a way that is transparent, relatable, and constructive, is useful.

Victims’ voice

Consideration of the victim, and the use of their voice throughout the RJ process is paramount in ensuring its success. Doing so helps to ensure that victims’ perspectives, needs, and experiences are respected and regarded throughout. Such inclusion promotes a more holistic and empathetic approach, helping tailor interventions to address the unique impact of harm on each individual and fostering a sense of empowerment and healing. The WhyMe? report highlights the high victim satisfaction rate of RJ, even when victims do not get the outcome they may have initially desired. The report also recommends that professionals provide regular updates, so that communication takes place across all parties. At Catch22, we agree that communication with victims is vital to make restorative justice work well. In fact, we have been working on a project with De Montfort University to capture victim outcomes; particularly those outcomes that are not considered as “traditional” signs of success, such as number of face to face meetings. We recognise that, simply having restorative conversation and communication with an RJ practitioner, regardless of whether or not a conference explicitly takes place, can in itself be a positive outcome for a victim. Keeping victims updated throughout the course of the process and providing holistic, wrap-around support along the way can contribute to feelings of satisfaction with the whole journey, supporting the victims to cope and recover.

To conclude, there is some way to go in ensuring that those young people who are able to benefit from RJ not only to have access to it, but are also encouraged to engage and embrace it. To progress in this space, we should endeavour to improve consistency across custody and community, embed a guarantee that the process remains person-centred, and, finally, establish strong lines of communication, to include a victim voice.

Restorative Justice for Young Adults in Prison and on Probation

Read the full report

Helen Mills from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (CCJS) shares her thoughts on how joint enterprise laws disadvantage Black and minority ethnic young adults. CCJS is a member of the T2A (Transition to Adulthood) Alliance, a Barrow Cadbury Trust campaign that makes the case for a distinct approach to young adults in the justice system.

A call for meaningful action on joint enterprise was made in the House of Lords some weeks ago, amid new evidence that current laws act in a discriminatory way and require a parliamentary response.

Parliamentarians from all three main political parties raised questions following Lord Woodley asking the government:

“What steps they are taking to address concerns that joint enterprise case law operates in a harsh way against young black men.”

New data

The question followed new data on joint enterprise released by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) last month. The data is the first official research in over a decade about joint enterprise, the common term for the set of legal principles that allows more than one person to be prosecuted in relation to the same incident.

The CPS monitoring pilot, which tracked homicide and attempted homicide in six CPS areas, found Black young men aged 18-25 were the largest demographic prosecuted. Referring to the findings, Lord Woodley said:

“Black people are 16 times -I repeat, 16 times- more likely than white people to be prosecuted for homicide or attempted homicide under joint enterprise laws. It is absolutely shocking, as I am sure your Lordships all agree. Does the Minister therefore agree that this proves indisputably that joint enterprise is being used in a racist way by prosecutors, and basically as a dragnet to hoover up black urban youth?”

The CPS findings confirm those of previous studies. Last year research from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, found these trends have been consistent over at least the last decade.

Calls for the CPS to monitor joint enterprise prosecutions date back to a Justice Committee brief inquiry in 2014. However, the CPS only agreed to monitor joint enterprise prosecutions earlier this year following legal action by the campaign group JENGbA. Their case drew on several Barrow Cadbury Trust funded research publications, including Dangerous Associations and the Usual Suspects.

Next steps

In Thursday’s debate, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames questioned the use of racialised ‘gang’ strategies in the prosecution of groups. Several peers also raised concerns about the high threshold for appeal faced by those convicted under controversial laws.

Pressed about what the government is doing in response to the data, Lord Bellamy conceded:

“It is an essential part of our criminal law to have a joint enterprise doctrine. The question is: where are the edges to the doctrine?”

He set out plans for the CPS to extend its monitoring of joint enterprise across England and Wales and to review its guidance on ‘gangs’. Both are welcome. However, neither are new actions, having previously been agreed in the legal settlement reached with JENGbA.

Helen Mills, Head of Programmes at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, who are currently supported by Barrow Cadbury Trust on this issue, said:

“We welcome the questions Lord Woodley and other peers are raising about young adults and joint enterprise. They demonstrate significant concerns, and questions about joint enterprise are a cross party issue. This requires the government to step up and commit to a comprehensive inquiry to address whether the current laws and practices underpinning them are fit for purpose, and what a fair, just approach to prosecuting groups looks like. They should not be to be dismissed by government as simply a legal matter to be left to the courts.”

The BBC’s Law in Action discuss concerns with joint enterprise laws around 13 minutes and 55 seconds in

Listen here

Bami Jolaoso, Senior Innovative Practice Officer at the Centre for Justice Innovation, reflects on a recent report evaluating the Chance to Chance deferred prosection pilot scheme.

In response to the Lammy Review, the Ministry of Justice piloted Chance to Change (C2C) deferred prosecution schemes across sites in West Yorkshire and London to address racial disparity in the youth and adult justice systems.

Why Deferred Prosecution schemes?

Deferred prosecution schemes remove the legal requirement for an admission of guilt, which allows people who have been accused of an offence to receive support and interventions that can address the causes of their offending behaviour, while avoiding court.

Though deferred prosecution schemes were not originally designed to address racial disparity, the removal of an admission of guilt has been found to tackle ‘inconsistent plea decisions’ between minoritised individuals (particularly black men) and their white counterparts. Deferred prosecutions schemes have also seen to improve trust and confidence in policing for participants and have higher rates of victim satisfaction.

The pilots have been evaluated by Manchester Metropolitan University, and they have recently published their final report based on a series of theory of change workshops and semi-structured interviews from practitioners and service users. While the West Yorkshire pilot was available to children aged 10-17 years old, the London pilot was for young adults, with both sites offering the scheme to those who would have received an Out-of-Court disposal (OOCD) or been charged to court.

Report findings: A Chance to Change?

The report found that there were many benefits to the scheme from practitioners (specifically Police) and service users alike. The offer of holistic, tailored support that was not enforceable was a huge benefit as participants felt like they were given an ‘opportunity’ to be referred into support, such as a substance misuse programmes or Child and Adolescent Mental Health services, that they would have been otherwise unable to access.

However, the report highlighted the need for training and a culture shift within policing as there was some confusion among Police officers that an admission of guilt was not required to refer individuals to the C2C schemes. Furthermore, some police officers were not aware that a person could be referred to the scheme even if they gave a no comment interview

This tension between practice and principle is mirrored across Police forces and Youth Justice Services across England and Wales, with the common misconception that a non-admission of guilt will impede on a participant’s level of engagement due to a perceived ‘lack of remorse’.

Studies indicate that a person’s understanding of guilt develops with their age and level of maturity. Considering the criminal justice system has a large cohort of 18–25-year-olds, a removal of this requirement is necessary in order to give people fair access to schemes. The requirement of guilt or outwards showing of remorse can disproportionality affect black and mixed heritage children (boys in particular) who are often adultified by professionals around them, which can result in certain behaviours being wrongly identified as showing a lack of remorse.

Some service users reported that the C2C scheme provided opportunities to improve trust and perceptions of Police, while others were sceptical of the scheme. For example, when interventions took place at a Police station, this caused anxiety for some participants and a feeling they had no choice in taking part in the scheme as there were worse outcomes for non-engagement.

In cases like this, we advocate moving interventions outside of formal justice settings and into the community, to encourage more engagement and develop links with support services once their criminal justice involvement is over. It is important to recognise that deferred prosecution schemes, though beneficial for minoritised people, still operate within a climate of mistrust and lack of confidence. Understanding the historical context of trust between the Police and minoritised communities is vital when developing these schemes.

The pilot found that issues stemming from policing can negatively impact service users’ trust in the Police and the wider justice system, and therefore their engagement with the scheme. Learning from this, practitioners should consider their policing practices, training and cultural competency in order to increase uptake from participants while improving practice, so minoritised communities are not overrepresented in local justice systems. Where appropriate and proportionate, police forces should aim to divert people away from the justice system as it reduces reoffending, allowing for service users to receive support while possibly avoiding a criminal record.

Supporting young adults

Importantly, there is a noticeable gap in identifying young adult’s experiences of deferred prosecution schemes. Young adults in particular have specific and complex needs that require distinct offers of support from practitioners who have been specifically trained to work with this cohort.

Though the report mentions that service users were offered tailored interventions, it was not made clear the level of support they were given and whether they received adequate exit planning. This is a legal requirement for children that should be offered to young adults too. Practitioners should assess the demographics of their area before setting up a deferred prosecution scheme and consider if they have the appropriate services for those aged 18-25.

New framework, better outcomes?

The new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill will be introducing a reformed framework for statutory out of court disposals, streamlining the existing six tiers into two tiers. The upper tier, the ‘Diversionary Caution’, simply renames the current conditional caution. The new ‘Community Caution’ is the name for the lower tier, and will be an umbrella disposal for outcomes such as penalty notices for disorder and simple cautions. Current non-statutory disposals such as Community Resolution, Diversion and Deferred Prosecution will continue to sit outside of this new framework.

Although the implementation for this new framework is fast approaching, the evidence shows that OOCDs are effective only when they scale down people’s contact with the criminal justice system. We hope that moving away from formally processing people in the justice system will continue to have significant reductions in reoffending, reduce the demand and cost on the justice system, and address the root cause of offending behaviour.

Learn more about pre-court disposals for adults

Click here