Extent to Which Family Policy Should Be Used as a Means of Crime Prevention - Essay Example

Extent to which family policy should be used as a means of crime prevention Introduction Child socioeconomic deprivation is one of the major causes of crime by the children when they grow. In the recent years London has been a scene of gun killings committed by young people. Most of the juveniles involved in such crimes have never known the comfort of a family as they have not been brought up in an intact family – where people belong with and to each other. Most of the criminals are boys who have never understood the innate respect that flows from having access to a father’s love and direction (Smith 2007, p. 3). In essence, the absence of an intact family can be said to be contributing to crime among the young people. Along the same line, Weatherburn and Lind (1999, p. 309) note that there is a well established relationship between poor parenting and juvenile crime. That is, juveniles neglected or rejected by their parents, weakly attached or supervised by them, or subjected to harsh, erratic and inconsistent discipline are much more likely to get involved in crime. Where families exist but are characterised by violence, the situation only acts to exacerbate crime when the children from such families grow. With a focus on the role of the family in society, this paper discusses the ways or extent to which family policy should be used as a means of crime prevention. The paper addresses the role of the family in society with regard to preventing crime. It also addresses what has been done so far in terms of family policy to help prevent crime and the ways in the family policy can be used to further attain the same objective. Role of family in society The family is the fundamental unity of society. There is evidence from sources in the United Kingdom and the United States to show that children who experience a breakdown of the family or who grow up in fatherless families are at much higher risk of poor societal outcomes. This is in terms educational failure, turning to drug abuse and engaging in crime and low employability rate due to low level of education. Fatherless children are also at much higher risk of being involved in early sex and later experience relationship breakdown (Centre for Policy Studies 2010). Coote (1994) notes that the family is crucial in society. It is where people learn to take account of others and understand the appropriate boundaries to their freedom. In deed the family itself is a highly social institution and hence, it is appropriate to say that when a child is brought up in a stable and well balanced family, she or he is more likely to develop better than one who is not. The point that fatherless children are more likely to be faced with many social problems stems in part from the fact that it is likely to be harder, emotionally and financially, for a mother to bring up children alone as noted by Coote (1994, p. 88). The family plays a crucial role in ensuring the maintenance of a virtuous society (Laufer & Adler 1990, p. 8) and most people are sufficiently socialised by families to avoid involvement in criminal acts (Gottfredson & Hirschi 1990, p. 105). This implies that if an ample environment is created for the family to flourish and achieve the objectives it is meant to in society, levels of crime will diminish at a significant rate. This is strengthened when there is a close relationship between parents and children. Fox and Benson (2000, p. 114) support this by noting that delinquency can be regarded less likely if there is a strong emotional bond between parents and the juvenile. Family policy Family policy can be defined in terms of the principles that govern actions directed at achieving specific ends through the provision of wellbeing, minimum standards of income, and some level of progressive redistribution in command over resources, in such a manner that shapes the development of families. Family policies identify families as the deliberate target of particular actions, and where the measures implemented are designed to have an impact on family resources as well as on family structure (Hantrais 2004, p. 132). Various laws and conventions affect the way in which a family should be created and developed. For instance, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that was signed on November 4 1950 sets clear limits on the powers of any given state to intervene in family life by noting that everyone has the right to respect for his private and personal life as well as his home (Hantrais 2004, p. 132). This can be taken to mean that the state should do nothing about the family as the matter involves the private affairs of those in the family. However, judging by the spate of violence in many families (which in many cases translate to juvenile delinquency), it is evident that there is need for state intervention in family affairs to ensure that the basic units of society promote crime-free coexistence. This is highlighted in Article 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which allows states and other concerned authorities to intervene in family matters if doing so is in “the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country” as pertains to preventing crime and protecting heath or morals or protecting the rights and freedom of others (Hantrais 2004, p. 134). How family policy should be used as a means of preventing crime From the discussions above, it is evident that there is need to intervene in families to curb criminality among children. This can be done by strengthening the family and promoting its integration as a unit. Different authorities have put forward different suggestions along this line. For instance, the Centre for Policy Studies (2010) notes that the United Kingdom fiscal policy should be restructured through the tax system and by removing the welfare penalty on two-parent families (presumably to promote intact families). Further, the Centre for Policy Studies argues that state intervention in family affairs should focus on protection of vulnerable children as well as managing their day-to-day lives and remove responsibility and judgement from parents. Although this is yet to be done, a number of other strategies can be implemented to ensure that family policy prevents crime. Family interventions and support There is evidence to that economic and social deprivation increases crime by decreasing the quality of parenting as reviewed by Weatherburn and Lind (1999, p. 309). The authors therefore argue that social and economic policies have a role to play in helping to lower or prevent further growth in crime. Additionally, from a criminologist and economist point of view, crime is more prevalent among economically disadvantaged groups because it offers them an opportunity to overcome material disadvantage (Weatherburn & Lind 1999, p. 309). In a similar dimension, Cullen (cited by Colvin 2000, p. 25), argues that anticipating lack of social support leads to greater involvement in crime. It is therefore important to remove the deprivation among families to promote creation of a crime-free society. According to the Council of Europe (2001, p. 36), there are many family-based interventions designed to prevent conduct disorder and delinquency by promoting children’s physical, emotional and intellectual development. Such interventions also reduce child abuse and improve family functioning. They include early home visits, pre-school education programmes, family therapy and parent training, as well as family preservation. In the United Kingdom, a number of programmes have been initiated to support families towards reducing crime. These include the Dundee Families Project initiated in the mid-1990s, the Respect Action Plan of 2006 and the Social Exclusion task Force review of “families at risk” as well as the Youth Taskforce Action Plan under the Department for Children, Schools and Families (Blyth & Soloman 2009, p. 41). A point worth noting is that all the aforementioned projects target the family as the starting point of intervention in reducing crime. It is therefore imperative that governments and other concerned authorities should support family policy by coming up with national and community policies that offer greater levels of social support involving greater numbers of individuals in supportive networks that help in averting crime. Provision of family support services by other organisations Family policy is embraced by local authorities in offering support services to families. Local authorities in the United Kingdom have to collaborate internally to achieve their youth crime prevention duties. In this pursuit, external collaborations are also critical. Local authorities should facilitate the provision of family services by others, especially voluntary organisations. They should make such arrangements as them may deem fit for others to offer such services according to Section 17(5) of the Children Act 1989. According to Arthur (2006, p. 58), this is an exceptionally valuable tool that could help minimise damaging factors and hence prevent cases of children being involved in offending behaviour. A good example is the £30 million three-year programme called On Track, which was set up by the Home Office. The project operates in about 25 deprived high-areas all over the United Kingdom. On Track serves as a crime reduction programme focusing on children at risk of getting involved in crime. The project’s aim is to identify children of ages between 4 to 12 years who are at risk of developing patterns of criminal or antisocial behaviour. Further, the project aims to prevent such children from doing so by offering them a series of planned, multiple interventions to address their various needs. Another programme called Family Support Grants provides money for projects to develop a wide array of evidence-based preventive services for children and their families (Arthur 2006, p. 59). Another key example of a family-policy based project aimed to prevent crime is the Sure Start Programme. The programme is area based and provides universal services for children under the age of 4 in some of the most underprivileged communities. It offers an opening for early support and intervention and aims to ensure that education, health and social services are fully engaged in supporting the most vulnerable school children. Early intervention is regarded the key to crime reduction, and parents are therefore explicitly targeted to help avert family break-ups and tackle absenteeism and school exclusions (Directgov 2010). Offering economic and social support guarantees elimination of crime as it eliminates the deprivation that causes people, including juveniles to engage in criminal activity. Conclusion This paper has reviewed the role of the family in society and how family policy should be used to prevent crime. A key issue addressed is that socioeconomic deprivation is one of the major causes of crime. Hence uplifting families, which are the units that people identify with, and which bond the society, will help alleviate that conditions that make people, including juveniles, to avoid criminal activity. Therefore, family policy should target families, and this can be explained by the various projects implemented in the United Kingdom to prevent crime. It has been discussed that family policy should target deprived families as they are the sources of most criminal acts. By avoiding issues such as family break-ups, intact families are created, and this helps ensure the socioeconomic wellbeing of everyone in the society. References Arthur, R. 2006, Family Life and Youth Offending: Home Is Where the Hurt Is, Taylor & Francis, London. Blyth, M. & Soloman, E.2009, Prevention and Youth Crime: Is Early Intervention Working? The Policy Press, London. Centre for Policy Studies 2010, “Policy areas: social policy/family,” Available from http://www.cps.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=cpsarticle&id=64&Itemid=39 (11 March 2011). Colvin, M. 2000, Crime and Coercion: An Integrated Theory of Chronic Criminality, Palgrave Macmillan, London. Coote, A. 1994, Families, Children and Crime, Institute for Public Policy Research, London. Council of Europe 2001, Role of early psychosocial intervention in the prevention of criminality: Recommendation rec(2000)20 adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 6 October 2000 and explanatory memorandum, Council of Europe, London. Directgov 2011, Sure Start Children's Centres,” Available from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Preschooldevelopmentandlearning/NurseriesPlaygroupsReceptionClasses/DG_173054 (11 March 2011). Fox, G.L. & Benson, M L. 2000, Families, Crime and Criminal Justice, Emerald Group Publishing, London. Gottfredson, M. R. & Hirschi, T. 1990, A General Theory of Crime, Stanford University Press (online). Hantrais, L. 2004, Family Policy Matters: Responding to Family Change in Europe, The Policy Press, London. Laufer, W. S. & Adler, F. 1990, Advances in Criminological Theory, Volume 2, Transaction Publishers, London. Smith, I. D. 2007, “Being tough on the causes of crime: Tackling family breakdown to prevent youth crime,” Social Justice Challenge, February 2007. Weatherburn, D. & Lind, B 1999, “Crime prevention: The role of economic and social support,” Agenda, Volume 6, Number 4, pp. 309-324. Available from http://epress.anu.edu.au/agenda/006/04/6-4-A-2.pdf (11 March 2011). Read More