Youth Inclusion Programs - Essay Example

Introduction Youth Inclusion Support Panels were launched by the Youth Justice Board with the aim of identifying and supporting youths between the ages of 8 to 13 who are considered to be at a high risk of offending or becoming the subject of an anti-social behaviour order. The impetus behind the launch of the panels was to prevent the youths from becoming involved in crime rather then dealing with the aftermath once they are in the system. The Panels are multi agency groups with many working on a voluntary basis after support services and other interventions for children and their families. The original pilots were paid for through the Children's Fund operated by the Department for Education and Skills. The key role for the Panels is to construct a package personally geared to each individual of proposed methods of support and interventions. This package has become known as the integrated support plan. Key workers are responsible for assessing the risk and for co-ordinating the package. Children and families wishing to avail themselves of the YISP services have to consent to a referral and assessment. Co-operation with the support plan is also voluntary. In order to achieve the best result the YISPs try to encourage the children and parents and carers to be involved in every stage of the process. Criteria In order for a child to be considered for the YISP programme certain criteria must be met. The children must not have gone beyond the police reprimand stage, they must not be known to the criminal justice system and should be regarded at a very high risk of being an offender. The programmes offered through YISPs centre on either direct work with the child or indirect work on behalf of the child. Direct work includes the organising of activities for children along with one-to-one support and mentoring whereas the indirect work centres on referrals to other agencies on the child's behalf. Key workers are also useful as mediators between the school and the child and the child's parents and can sometimes assist in getting an excluded school re-admitted back into school. According to an evaluation carried out by Morgan Harris Burrows (2003) since the use of the Youth Inclusion Programmes the arrest rate of juveniles has significantly reduced and exclusions from school had also declined. There has been a slight increase in school non-attendance although this could not be directly linked to the inclusion programme. Those responsible for the programmes argue that the system is still in its early stages and that the impact of the Inclusion Programmes will not be felt for some considerable time. In the report mentioned above it was noted that 75% of those categorised as being in a high risk group had attended one of the programmes. Most of the youths had participated in sports activities organised by the volunteers. The figures revealed a 65% reduction in arrest over the three year study (Morgan Harris Burrows, 2003). Not all of the results were as impressive. In most of the studies conducted neighbourhood crime actually increased rather than decreased. The figures on neighbourhood crime did not just relate to juveniles and therefore cannot be used as an indicator to suggest that the programmes do not work. Youth Inclusion Programs Gray (2007) regards the youth inclusion programmes as a preventative measure geared towards young people at risk of offending. Mackie et al (2003) it was noted that the differences in re-offending rates between those who had attended Youth Inclusion Programmes and those who had not could be accounted for the fact that those who attended the Programmes had less free time in which to get actively involved in crime. Their study concluded that the reduction in re-offending could firstly be due to the fact that they were less available to commit crimes and secondly less likely to commit a crime out of boredom. Greenwood et al (1998) argues that early intervention is more likely to prevent the youth from entering into a life of crime then a long term intervention which starts once the youth has already been involved in the criminal justice system. There have been criticisms of the way that the programmes have been rolled out. The initial project concentrated on targeting high risk areas. Those areas targeted believe that this had a kind of labelling affect, which stigmatised those residents living in the targeted areas (Fitzgerald, Stevens and Hale, 2004). Mackie et al (2003) believes that targeting a particular area based on the calculation of deprivation in that area may mean that areas that are in greater need fail to get that assistance. This in turn can cause division if communities believe that other communities are being favoured over their community for assistance. Lockyer and Stone (1998) believed that programmes designed to prevent juveniles from getting involved in crime from the offset could only work through the inclusion of the children, their parents and other agencies. They felt that making a policy and setting programmes for the children to become involved with in isolation from the children and the groups would be regarded as a punishment rather than a deterrent and therefore would be likely to be rejected by the youths concerned. Rose (2000) believes that using inclusionary schemes such as mentioned above is more likely to impact on whether the youth becomes embroiled in a life of crime or whether they are diverted away from this. For those marginally involved in crime Rose believes that the inclusion programmes will stop them slipping further into criminal behaviour. Gendreau and Ross (1980) advocated the 'what works' philosophy which Muncie (2002) expanded upon declaring that policies that were inclusionary were more likely to have an impact on an individual then those that were exclusionary. When considering whether the Youth Inclusion Programmes are likely to be more effective then punishment it is difficult to reach a conclusion. As mentioned above the figures of re-offending vary little from those that are on the programmes and those that are not. As also mentioned, above the variation in the figures could be due to the lack of boredom of those involved in the programmes or lack of availability to be able to commit crimes. Positive Intervention and Punishment Punishment has been criticised as being ineffective in the main because the punishment often does not seem to fit the crime. There is also the criticism that punishments do not work as those involved in crime regard punishments as an occupational hazard. In a study conducted by Reynolds (2000) using students and prisoners he found that the certainty of being caught far outweighed the severity of the punishment for both groups. Following the study he stated that In terms of real-world application, the authors of the study speculate that long prison terms are likely to be more impressive to lawmakers than lawbreakers. . . . Supporting evidence for this viewpoint comes from a National Academy of Sciences panel which claimed that a 50 percent increase in the probability of incarceration prevents about twice as much violent crime as a 50 percent increase in the average term of incarceration. (Reynolds, 2000). Murray (1997) claims to have demonstrated evidence that punishment reduces crime by deterrence, he further argues that increasing the probability of severe sentences for crimes can reduce the incidence of crimes committed. Since the evaluations of the scheme have been able to supply a definitive answer as to whether YISPs has made any significant reductions in crime levels it is impossible to comment as to whether such programmes are preferential to punishment. The evaluation suggests that the exact effectiveness of the programme would not be able to be judged until the next generation of youths emerged which could be up to twenty years before a conclusion can be reached. Conclusion Positive behavioural interventions are used before the occurrence of problem behaviours. The team must understand why a child has problem behaviours and which types of strategies can be helpful in particular, in order to develop positive behavioural interventions. A number of strategies can be used to reduce problem behaviours in children, like (Jordan, 2006): Changing the place where a child sits in the classroom. Adjusting his/her schoolwork. Rewarding the child for positive behaviours. The teacher may try to speak in a different tone of voice in order to help the child remain calm. Adults should keep calm when the child is angry. The goal should be to stop or eliminate the problem behaviours so that the punishment does not become necessary. An effective behaviour intervention plan which is usually known as a behaviour support plan or positive intervention plan is used to teach or reinforce positive behaviours. It includes: Skill-training to increase appropriate behaviour in the child. Inevitable changes that should be made in the classrooms or other environments in order to reduce or eliminate problem behaviours. Effective strategies to replace problem behaviours with appropriate behaviours while serving the same function for the child It acts as a support for the child to use the appropriate behaviours intervention. References 1. FitzGerald, M. Stevens, A. Hale, C. (2004). Review of Knowledge on Juvenile Violence: Trends, Policies and Responses in Europe. 2. Gray, P. Youth Justice, Social Exclusion and the Demise of Social Justice. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 46 (4), 401-416. 3. Greenwood, P. Model, K.E., Rydell, C.P. Chiesa, J. (1996). Diverting Children from A Life Of Crime: Measuring Costs And Benefits. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. 4. Jordan, Dixie. (2006). Functional Behavioural Assessment and Positive Interventions: What Parents Need to Know. Minneapolis: Pacer Center. 5. Lockyer, A. Stone, F. eds. (1998). Juvenile justice in Scotland: Twenty-five years of the welfare approach. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 6. Mackie, A., Burrows, J. Hubbard, R. (2003). Evaluation Of The Youth Inclusion Programme: End Of Phase One Report. In Y.J. Board (Ed.). London: Morgan Harris Burrows. 7. Morgan Harris Burrows. (2003). Evaluation of the Youth Inclusion Programme. End of Phase One Report (Youth Justice Board, London). 8. Muncie, J. (2002). Policy Transfers and 'What Works': Some reflections on Comparative Youth Justice. Youth Justice. 1: 3. 9. Murray, C. (1997). Does Prison Work. Institute of Economic Affairs. London: Coronet Books. 10. Reynolds, M. (2000). Does Punishment Work to Reduce Crime. National Centre for Policy Analysis, Congressional Testimony before the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Sub committee on Crime. 11. Rose R. 2000. How much does social capital add to individual health A survey study of Russians. Social Science & Medicine; 51: 1421-1435 12. Ross, R. Gendreau, P. (eds.). (1980). Effective Correctional Treatment, Butterworth, Toronto. Appendix A Source: [Online]. http://www.pbis.org/schoolwide.htm Bibliography 1. Kazdin, A.E. (1989). Behaviour modification in applied settings (4th ed.) Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing. 2. Martens, B.K., & Meller, P.J. (1990). The application of behavioural principles to educational settings. In T.B. Gutkin & C.R.Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 612-634). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 3. Mayer, G.R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behaviour in the schools. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 28, 467-492. Read More