Evolution of Childrens Social Care within the UK - Research Paper Example

Key Milestones in the Evolution of Children’s Social Care within the UK The aftermath of the Second World War propagated the creation of the Welfare state in the UK, with piecemeal legislative measures acknowledging rights of children and child protection (Sayer, 2008). The majority of legislative measures followed the tradition of the 19th century institutional approach to social problems, which had created the legacy of children’s homes as a result of the Poor Law reformations (Butler & Drakeford, 2005, p.180). However, the institutional system did not address children’s interests and a major turning point to the “institutional craze” in the social care approach to children was the implementation of the Children and Young Persons Acts 1963 and 1969, which moved towards a preventative family first strategy (Garrett, 2009). The objectives of the 1960s legislation were borne out of the Home Office report and Memorandum of 1955 which addressed care of children. In particular, the Memorandum asserted that “it is accepted that every child should be brought up in his own home, unless separation from the family is unavoidable” (1955, para.3). Notwithstanding the preventative objectives of the 1960s legislation, there continued to be a steady rise in the percentage of children in public care, which was compounded by the lack of adequately skilled childcare specialists available (Butler and Drakeford, 2005, p.187). The reality of the continued institutional system served as a prelude to the integration of social work research into child care legislative policy, which culminated in the implementation of the Children Act 1989 (Eekelaar & Dingwall, 1990, p.2). The Children Act 1989 (CA) was implemented in 1991 to revolutionise proceedings regarding the welfare of children in England and Wales. Hester argues that the Children Act 1989 re-defined child care law by introducing new measures for working with children and families in both public and private family law (2002). Generally speaking, the CA embodies a fresh approach to working with and for children and overall aim of upholding the relationship between parent and child and increase co-operation between social services and the people. To this end the CA operated as a key milestone in the approach to social care in the UK as it was a culmination of the Social Services Select Committee of the House of Commons Report in 1984, which undertook hearings into the operation of the legal framework in disputes between public authorities and parents in relation to social care and protection of children (Eekelaar & Dingwall, 1990, p.2). The Select Committee’s report coincided with the Law Commission’s independent consultative document the “Review of Child Care Law”, which resulted in the Law on Child Care and Family Services White Paper. Furthermore, in a review of the CA 1989 provisions, Eekelaar & Dingwall posit that the collaborative consideration of the legal framework and practicalities of social care through academic commentary highlighted the shortcomings of the pre-existing system for looked after children in particular (1990, p.2). Moreover, it is evident that the reports into the death of Jasmine Beckford (1985), Tyra Henry (1985) and Kimberley Carlile (1985) along with allegations of child sexual abuse in the 1988 Cleveland Report underlined the failures of the pre-existing child protection system (Eekelaar & Dingwall, 1990, p.2). However, whilst the aim of the CA was to increase co-operation between social services, the judicial system and the public; Wilson et al argue that there is uneasiness regarding the law and social practice and that “in relation to social work practice, law is relevant as a setting in which decisions are made and a structure within which social workers practise. The courts and institutions can become an extension of the workplace. To work effectively within those structures an understanding of the hierarchy of the courts”(2001, p.194). This is further compounded by the inherent complexity of social care practice in the UK system. For example, there are different approaches to social work interventions and Dominelli and Payne posit that “social worker’s responses to requests for services are embedded in the three types of professional intervention….. maintenance, therapeutic and emancipatory” (2009:12). The maintenance approach is the conventional approach to social work intervention and intends to improve the individual functioning or adaptation to situations and emphasises neutral professionals who objectively examine a person’s circumstances (Dominelli, 2009: 12). Moreover, Dominelli argues that social care assistance is provided within a clearly defined bureaucratic framework (Dominelli, 2009: 12). Alternatively, the therapeutic approach considers whether the individual can improve their position through targeted interventions. Indeed, Dominelli asserts that “a principle aim is to enhance psychological and emotional functioning so that a person can handle his or her own affairs” (Dominelli, 2009: 12). The emancipatory approach is generally associated with a more radical strand social work and challenges the current balance of power in society and distribution of sources and “it identifies the oppressive nature of contemporary social relations and argues that social workers have a responsibility to do something about these while helping people as individuals” (Dominelli, 2009: 13). As such, it is submitted that the emancipation approach is concerned with ensuring social justice and seeking structural changes to make this happen (Dominelli, 2009: 13). Directly correlated to the social work theory and efficacy of social work theory operating to optimum level in practice is the organisational backdrop. To this end, Dominelli argues that globalisation is having a substantial impact on the personal and social services and “much of its impact on the social work profession has been articulated through the new managerialism which has subjected welfare states in Western countries to market oriented regulatory regimes including that of becoming a cost effective business” (Dominelli, 2002:141). As such Dominelli argues that the pressures of external market forces have impacted working relations and infrastructure in the social welfare arena, which questions the practical efficacy of the CA as a key milestone in the development of social care services in the UK. In particular, Dominelli highlights the following factors as being particularly impacted: 1) Provision being targeted towards the most poor; 2) Internal fiscal responsibility; 3) Accountability for use of resources, time and expertise; and 4) Relationships with other service providers and engagement of individuals more fully in the decision making process in their lives (Dominelli, 2002: p.141-142). In highlighting these factors, Dominelli further argues that as organisations, the voluntary sector welfare providers have become business oriented and that the state’s role has focused primarily on purchasing services and through that, enabling services to be created and accessed. As such, this clearly has potential ramifications for the delivery of social care services (Dominelli, 2002: 141). Moreover, the external business pressures risk creating a paradox with the drive for accountability. To this end, Dominelli highlights the point that accountability should mean having the confidence to protest against social injustice when identified, whereas “sadly becoming business oriented does not guarantee that those in need will receive the services they require, that working conditions for employees will become worker friendly, or that employees will readily criticise their paymasters” (Dominelli, 142). Additionally, this directly correlates to the quality of service provided to and the participation of service users. For example, the Social Care Institute for Excellence’s Position Paper No.3 in 2004 argued that social care service professionals are interacting with service users as partners in strategic planning arenas as well as at front line service delivery level, which involves front line service delivery level and user led awareness to help improve relations” (at www.scie.org/positionpapers/pp03.pdf). To this end, the position paper further asserts that “organisational cultures and structures need to respond and change in order to accommodate new partnerships and new ways of working with people”(at www.scie.org/positionpapers/pp03.pdf). Furthermore, a study undertaken by Research in Practice in 2002 of 50 local authorities, which involved a collaborative project with social service departments in relation to the Government drive to implement evidence-based practice into social services for children and families (www.rip.org.uk). To this end, the study indicated that there was clearly “uncertainty about the nature of evidence in social care and its “validity in relation to decision making, policy and planning” (Research in practice, 2002 at www.rip.org.uk). The study further argues that many practitioners feel excluded from decision making process. Indeed, the study further points to the Department of Health promotion of evidenced based practice (Department of Health, 2000 quoted in www.rip.org.uk). However, the study argues that with regard to social services for children and families there are numerous obstacles to achieving this, namely the oral based culture within the social services “which results in staff valuing direct practice experience over, and often to the exclusion of other forms of learning” (www.rip.org.uk). Moreover, the study bemoans the poor correlation between those undertaking research and those providing services to vulnerable children and families (www.rip.org.uk). Additionally, to this end, the study argues that from an organisational perspective “the community continues to underestimate the need to make research understandable and relevant for practice and many social care agencies fail to offer tangible assistance to staff to access and use research in their day to day work” (www.rip.org.uk). To this end, the study posits that “evidence based practice requires organisations and the staff within them to ask searching and challenging questions about their practice and the services they provide. They answer these questions with reference to published research they provide (www.rip.org.uk). The study further defines the evidence based approach as “one informed by the best available evidence of what is effective, the practice expertise of professionals and the experience and views of service users” (www.rip.org.uk). However, whilst there is a wider acceptance of this as regards services to children and families, the approach has nevertheless attracted criticism for ignoring practical realities. To this end the Research Practice study agrees with Webb’s observation that “the ensuing orientation towards evidenced based practice and related requirements of evaluative effectiveness may well undermine traditional professional practice, whilst further legitimating a harsher managerialist ethos of performance culture in social work” (Webb, 2001: 58, quoted in www.rip.org.uk). The study further refers to Kitson et al’s arguments that integration of evidence into practice requires sustained attention to the nature of evidence the organisational context and the facilitation process: “the findings of this study suggest considerable uncertainty at all three levels amongst those surveyed and a number of fundamental difficulties therefore face social agencies if undertaking an evidence-based approach” (www.rip.org.uk). This has therefore left the practical conundrum whereby children and family service managers endorse the evidence approach in theory, however “confirmed no clear view of what constitutes the nature of evidence in social care and therefore little consensus remains about how best it can be put to use” (www.rip.org.uk). In conclusion, the study asserts that “it remains difficult therefore to envisage how all practitioners and team scan be enabled to practice in an evidenced based way without mechanisms in place that both support access to evidence and understanding of relevance to practice” (www.rip.org.uk). Accordingly, this analysis demonstrates that in the last forty years the significant key milestone in the development of social care has been the increasing acknowledgment of social care research and methodology in legislative reform. As such, the developments in the legislative framework have clearly moved towards a more collaborative approach to social care, which theoretically moves towards increased acknowledgment of child rights away from the institutional approach of the nineteenth and early and twentieth century. However, whilst the legislative measures have pressed the need for preventative measures in favour to interventionist measures; the inherent complexity of social care and appropriate application of social care methodology in practice highlights the need to reconsider effective cohesion between social care organisations and court services going forward. b) Describe how current legislation, policy, theory and research influence current practice in “Child Protection” and also Youth Justice The legislative framework governing practice in relation to child protection in the UK is the CA 1989 (as amended by the Children’s Act 2004, which will be discussed further below). As highlighted in the previous section, the CA embodied a fresh approach to working with and for children and overall aim of upholding the relationship between parent and child. Indeed the new system of private ordering was intended to promote and continue parental responsibility post divorce with minimum interference by the court (Probert, 2006). Moreover, in the consultation process, Lord Mackay asserted that “while the law can sever the legal bond between husband and wife, the law in family disputes should do nothing that appears to weaken bond between parent and child” (Law Com. No 172, 1988). Nevertheless, the reality of problem areas outside the parameters of the overriding need to preserve parent/child contact is addressed through the rights of local authorities with regard to care proceedings under the CA, which is vital to the protection of children from abuse. The CA expressly provides every local authority (LA) with the powers to fulfil its duty to “safeguard and promote the welfare of the child”. In particular, section 31(1) of the CA provides LA’s with the right to apply to the courts for the imposition of a care order, which effectively transfers legal parental responsibility to the LA. However, section 31(2) provides that “a court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied- a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer significant harm; and b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to – (i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or (ii) the child’s being beyond parental control”. Accordingly, the section 31(2) threshold must be crossed to justify the imposition of an order and the focus of this analysis is to critically evaluate the approach of the courts to the section 31(2) threshold, with contextual reference to case law. As in initial observation, the section 31(2) threshold must be considered in light of the significant principle of the CA of minimum intervention. Section 1(5) of the CA provides that “…no order should be made unless the court considers making an order to be better for the child than not making one”. In practice, this means that the court will only make an order if it believes it will have a beneficial impact on the welfare of the child (Lowe & Douglas, 2006). Furthermore, whilst the term “partnership” is not expressly included in the Children Act 1989, it is arguably implied, as a result of the application of sections 22 and 61, which require local authorities to “…consult with the child, the parents and any other relevant persons before making any decision in relation to the child.” The concept of partnership working is a relatively recent one in social work, and it signifies a shift from a situation where workers tried to resolve problems on behalf of families and impose solutions, to one involving more consultation, consent and co-operation. It requires the use of a key social work skill which is the ability to ask “…about and listen to the wishes and feelings of families and children…” The shift to partnership working was partly influenced by practice experience and research that demonstrated how a more co-operative approach can ultimately help to promote the welfare of the child particularly in abuse cases (Buchanan, 1995). Linked to the principles of minimum intervention and welfare is the principle in section 1(2) of the Act which asserts that “…delay in determining issues is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.” Whilst courts may make every effort to adhere to this, legal proceedings can become protracted as evidenced by the ad hoc judicial approach to the section 31(2) threshold. Moreover, the sensitive and often hidden nature of abuse cases renders it vital to prevent delays in any intervention. Nevertheless, if considered in context, the CA overriding presumption of a no order principle indicates that there is no order unless the section 31 threshold is met. Moreover, section 8(1) of the Children Act 1989 provides that “When a court determines any question with respect to a …child… the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration”. This was necessary in light of the statutory requirement under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, which provides that “A local authority has a duty to investigate where they “have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives or is found, in their area is suffering, or likely to suffer significant harm”. To this end, the CA provisions marked a change by replacing previous legislation intending to implement a simplified legal approach, which for the first time included consideration of the wishes and feelings of the child into the decision-making process (Bainham, 2005). However, the extent to which the wishes of the child actually reflect judicial determinations under section 31(2) remains the subject of debate (Bainham, 2005). Moreover, if we further consider the applicable social work theory principles in context of the applicable law, the CA replaced previous legislation intending to implement a simplified legal approach, which for the first time included consideration of the wishes and feelings of the child into the decision making process (Workbook 2, p.10). To this end, the CA is described as “the most comprehensive piece of legislation about the upbringing of children…” (DOH Workbook 2, p.9). As highlighted above, its key principle is to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, the welfare of the child being the paramount consideration when the court makes an order in connection with section 8 of the Act (private law) and Part IV (care and supervision orders). Other principles include minimum intervention by the courts and recognition that delay is likely to be prejudicial to the welfare of the child. Furthermore, DOH guidelines expand these to include (among other) the philosophy that children are best brought up with their families. If this is not possible then every effort must be made to preserve continuity with their race, colour, religion and language (Workbook 2 p 14-17). Given that the primary concern for the CA is the welfare of children, this must also be the principle practice issue (Buchanan, A., 1995). Essentially, a social care worker is required to assess the situation and initially consider a child’s welfare is affected to the extent that they would be described as a child “in need” as defined by section 17 of the CA. Local Authorities have a duty to provide services for such children (Aldgate, 2001 p.38). Moreover, Section 17 of the Act is important for social workers, providing them with “… opportunity to take a proactive and supportive approach to meeting the needs of social workers to attempt to interpret the notion of “welfare” as widely as possible and to use the legislation to obtain appropriate services for children….” (Workbook 2, p.25). Therefore, in undertaking a risk assessment, the CA requires that the child’s welfare should be the paramount issue (Buchanan., A. 1995). A further significant principle of the CA is that of minimum intervention. Section 1(5) of the Act states that “…no order should be made unless the court considers making an order to be better for the child than not making one…” (Workbook 2 p14) and in practice, this means that the court will only make an order if it believes it will have a beneficial impact on the welfare of the child. Therefore, from a social work theoretical perspective, this is a prime example of how the law can inform practice. Several courses of action are open to the social worker supporting families. However, it is important to note the statistical data pointing to favourable outcomes in the interests of the child’s welfare when considering minimum intervention (Buchanan., A 1995). For example, Aldgate highlights that “forty-three percent of children placed on a child protection register could have been dealt with by voluntary means…” (Aldgate, 2001, p.41). Furthermore, the concept of minimum intervention is in line with the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers to operate in a way that promotes the independence of service users while protecting them from harm (Update Supplement p.5). The concept of “empowerment” is the key element here, practising in a way that recognises the limitations of social work role, enabling services users to receive services “within a context of consent and co-operation…” (DOH Workbook 2, p33). A significant contribution to the achievement of empowerment is to work in partnership with families (Workbook 2, p33). Therefore, whilst the term “partnership” is not expressly included in the CA, it is arguably implied, as a result of the application of sections 22 and 61, which require local authorities to “…consult with the child, the parents and any other relevant persons before making any decision in relation to the child.” The concept of partnership working is a relatively recent one in social work, and it signifies a shift from a situation where workers tried to resolve problems on behalf of families and impose solutions, to one involving more consultation, consent and co-operation. It requires the use of a key social work skill which is the ability to ask “…about and listen to the wishes and feelings of families and children…” The shift to partnership working was partly influenced by practice experience and research that demonstrated how a more co-operative approach can ultimately help to promote the welfare of the child (Jordan, 2001 p.56). Linked to the principles of minimum intervention and welfare is the principle in section 1(2) of the Act which asserts that “…delay in determining issues is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.” Whilst courts may make every effort to adhere to this, legal proceedings can become protracted, particularly in relation to private law disputes (Cull p.83). In this context, mediation has a role as an alternative to court proceedings in order to facilitate minimum delay (Workbook 2, p.141). The principle of minimum delay can be achieved by the provision of temporary voluntary accommodation as provided for under Section 20 of the CA. Alternatively, this course of action also simultaneously bears the risk of compromising the “no order” principle of the Act in an attempt to circumvent the courts (Aldgate, 2001 p.37). Another key principle of the CA is that wherever possible, children should be brought up by their families (Quinton et al., 1997). The term “family” is construed in the widest possible context (Workbook 2, p.15). The concept is based on “…. A cumulative knowledge of the importance of families to children’s sense of identity and the relevance of secure, continuing attachments to children’s development…” as well as the consideration of the negative effect of the alternative which is to grow up cared for by outsiders (Aldgate, 2001 pp.31/2). However, as highlighted above, a significant practice problem in implementing the CA provisions has been the questionability of effective collaboration between social care services and the judiciary in applying a minimum intervention approach. This is further compounded by the fact that the overriding presumption of minimum intervention has led the judiciary to adopt a case by case approach in considering the section 31(2) threshold. The sensitive nature of local authority care applications and complex social issues requires such an approach, which is clearly reflected in the judicial approach to considering when the threshold of harm is required to be met in care order applications. However, it is submitted that the approach to the burden of proof in serious cases not only effectively creates a reversal and presumption of no harm that has to be disproved it arguably undermines the purpose of the section 31(2) threshold. This not only perpetuates legal uncertainty in a complex social area, it further devalues the overriding protective purpose of the CA. Moreover, whilst the purpose of the CA was to strike a balance between support and compulsory intervention in families (Beckett, 2007, p.9); it has been argued that the intended shift did not transpire and that care orders in fact tripled between 1992-2004 despite an attempt to move towards increased family support (Beckett, 2007, p.9). Indeed, Beckett refers to Schwartz’s argument that rising abuse and the current social care system is geared towards detecting abuse as opposed to providing useful services for children on grounds that more and more children are going into care without the care system being successful (2007, p.7). Additionally, part of the problem is that the system itself remains a political construct and “all governments feel under pressure to limit public expenditure. This can result in a kind of tokenism in which public services, such as the child protection system, are periodically required to go through notions of implementing changes which are trumpeted as revolutionary” (Beckett, 2007, p.7). For example, The Waterhouse inquiry in 2000 regarding abuse in North Wales’ children’s homes focused on harm caused to children in institutional and substitute family environments (Davidson, 2008, p.37). The Waterhouse inquiry also brought light to the inadequate health provision for children both in care and in respect of aftercare support. Additionally, the Laming Report inquiry (2003) into the death of Victoria Climbie reinforced the continued shortcomings of the legislative framework in improving social care methods and policy in practice. To this end, the Laming Report asserted that: “it is deeply disturbing that during the days and months following her initial contact with Ealing Housing Department’s Homeless Person’s Unit, Victoria was known to no less than two further housing authorities, four social services departments, two child protection teams of the Metropolitan Police Services, a specialist centre managed by the NSPCC, and she was admitted to two different hospitals because of suspected deliberate harm. The dreadful reality was that these services knew little or nothing more about Victoria at the end of the process than they did when she was first referred to Ealing Social services by the Homeless persons’ unit in April 1999” (Laming, 2003, section 1.16). The Government response to the Laming Report was the “Every Child Matters Green Paper” (DFES 2003), which extrapolated an emphasis on shifting practitioner’s policy approach towards preventative services. However, it has been argued that this approach leaves agencies and individual practitioners “to grapple with inconsistency of being able to focus on family support”, which risks the neglect of child protection (Beckett, 2007). The Every Child Matters paper and the Laming Report were preludes to the implementation of the Children Act 2004, introducing reforms to the current CA 1989 system. The central reforms of the 2004 Act are as follows: 1) A Children’s commissioner for England is established (sections 1-9); 2) New provisions to implement a database of children in England and for the devolved Welsh Assembly to make similar arrangements in Wales (section 12); 3) Imposition of requirement on local authorities to appoint directors of children’s services (section 18); and 4) Establishment of local boards for safeguarding children in each local authority area (sections 13-16). The Children Act 2004 further acknowledges the separation between England and Wales as a result of devolution and implements separate legislative controls pertaining to social work (Williams, 2008). Whilst there is a single system of judicial responsibilities for England and Wales, there is administrative separation in the right to use Welsh language in court proceedings under the Welsh Language Act 1993. Furthermore, Williams highlights that in essence, the occupational standards for child care social work is the same for both England and Wales and issued separately with separate English and Welsh bodies responsible for registration of social workers and the General Social care council and the Care Council for Wales respectively (2008, p. 63). Additionally, the 2004 Children Act seeks to improve collaboration between local authorities and their relevant partners as defined in the Act and in Wales, the court system is the same. However the administrative devolution of arrangements for court sittings and provision for use of Welsh language in Wales is addressed under the Welsh Language Act 1993. Furthermore, the inspection is undertaken by the social services inspectorate for Wales and the Care Standards Inspectorate Wales, with reviews being undertaken by the Wales Programme for Improvement. Complaints under the CA 1989 are done under the CA 1989 procedure and the public service ombudsman in Wales and the Commission for Equality and Human Rights Wales and Children’s Commissioner for Wales. Beckett comments that “the 2004 Children Act is part of a widespread reform of the way services to children and families are delivered in the UK through the concept of local children’s trusts to bring together agencies with responsibilities for families and children in one area” (2007, p.9). However, Beckett remains sceptical as to the efficacy of the 2004 Act as ultimately the efficiency of increased collaboration is intrinsically dependent on available financial resources. The Every Child Matters Paper also addressed youth justice and the central pieces of legislation regulating the youth justice system in England and Wales are the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and more recently the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (CJIA 2008) implemented as a result of media pressure and public perception of the need to combat the proliferation of youth crime. In terms of policy influences in practice, it is evident that the media has had a significant role in shaping public opinion on crime, which is evidenced by the “mass manipulative” theory pertaining to the relationship between mass media and public opinion. From a contextual perspective, Pearson argues “that fear of the young is almost endemic to society, suggesting that an over-dramatised sense of threat is always close to the surface in public media consciousness” (Smith, 2007, p.16). A prime example is the media reporting of the James Bulger murder in 1993, where the defendants were aged ten at the time of the murder. The media reporting of the case provoked public outcry and supports Pickford’s proposition that the media shapes public opinion by the depiction of a dangerous youth. Indeed, Smith highlights that “perceptions of the pattern of youth crime are unbalanced, “media portrayals of persistent juvenile offenders and the continuing influence of the James Bulger murder on the public psyche….. are the most likely cause” (Smith, 2007, p.189)” This triggered the issue of youth crime to the forefront of the political agenda, which was evidenced by the “Misspent Youth: Young People and Crime” paper undertaken by the Audit Commission (AC) in 1996, proposing a radical overhaul of the Youth Justice System. This further culminated in the Home Office White Paper “No More Excuses” (1997), which set out the Government’s programme of reform for the youth justice system, which was then embodied in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Section 37 of the 1998 Act established the central purpose of aiming to prevent repeat offending and as such, the 1998 Act imposed a duty on all agencies and bodies working under the youth justice umbrella to have regard to it in carrying out their duties. Moreover, the “No More Excuses” paper proposed address repeat offending by identifying factors that were correlated to juvenile crime. For example, Graham and Bowling posit that factors such as troubled home life and poor attainment at school, contribute to the risks of youth offending (Graham & Bowling, 1995). Therefore the Government intended to adopt a socially contextual approach by attempting to address the myriad of triggers increasing the risk of repeat offending. A prime example is the 1998 Act’s vesting the police with new powers to confiscate alcohol from children in public. Additionally, section 61 of the 1998 Act introduced the drug treatment and testing order. Ashford further observes that between 1999 to 2007 grants were made to develop youth crime prevention initiatives to an approximate cost of £100 million pounds (Ashford, 2007). Notwithstanding the cost, the Ashford Report indicates that these prevention programmes by youth offending teams were generally effective (Ashford, 2007). Indeed, Burrows comments that the Youth Intervention Programme was noted to be successful in reducing arrest rates and the gravity of repeat offending (Burrows, 2003). However in 2004, the AC recommended that youth crime prevention would be more effective if schools, health services and other agencies assumed increased responsibility for young people (2004). Additionally, the statutory aim of the 1998 Act was to make offenders and their parents address offending behaviour and take responsibility. To this end, the 1998 act abolished the doctrinal presumption of Doli Incapax for 10-14 year olds and introduced parenting orders to help parents control the behaviour of their children (Section 6). In terms of parenting responsibility, Ghate and Ramella’s study of 42 parenting projects was an extremely useful insight into the range of behavioural improvements as well as lowered reconviction rates brought about by the 1998 Act (Ghate & Ramella, 2004). However, the 2004 AC report highlighted that the use of parenting orders varied between areas and was not consistently enforced (2004, p.40). This was amended in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, by introducing parenting contacts and parenting orders available with referral orders; and by providing additional funding. Additionally, the No More Excuses White paper proposed that the youth justice system should improve public confidence as a result of the public perception of youth crime, which in turn highlights the influence of the media. For example, Hough and Roberts posited that whilst actual figures indicated that youth crime figures had not increased in recent years, three out of four believed it had (2003). Additionally, the 1998 Act introduced measures geared towards risk factors in first time offending and introduced child safety orders and local child curfews to protect children under 10 from becoming involved in crime through a restorative approach. Additionally, the AC surveys suggest that the restorative measures of youth justice reform have been effective in practice (2004). Prime examples under the 1998 Act include reparation orders, final warnings, action plan orders and amendments to existing supervision order provisions (Crawford & Newburn, 2002). Furthermore, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 developed a restorative justice approach with the creation of referral orders. Referral orders are claimed to “bring home to young offenders what they have done” (Home Office 2003). They are directed at young people without any prior convictions and hailed as “one of the most important forms of restorative justice in the Youth Justice System” (2003, p.15). Under the referral orders system, the offender will attend a Youth Offending Panel whereby the panel agrees a programme with the offender to make reparation and tackle the root of their offending (2003, p.63). These can include a number of activities such as curfews and programmes of community reparation (2003). With regard to reparation orders, the Home Office Report demonstrates that during 2002 over half of all youth offending team interventions were restorative with 68% of victims claiming to be satisfied from the process (2003, p.15). Moreover, the rises in the UK prison populations has rendered the consideration of restorative justice to the fore as a viable alternative within the youth justice system (Johnstone, 2002). Moreover, from a youth offending perspective, Hudson posits that restorative justice system would seem better equipped for juveniles committing minor offences (In Johnstone, 2002). Additionally, the National Audit Office research into these final warnings and reprimands argued that they were effective in preventing re-offending patterns. Fifty seven per cent of magistrates rated these programmes as good or excellent in providing sufficient supervision and eight out of ten felt it was beneficial in providing an appropriate response to the first time offenders (2003). However, the quality of the orders varies locally and concerns were expressed about delays, between court hearing and a panel meeting (Audit Commission, 2004, p.26). Additionally, the Youth Justice Board’s Annual Statistics (2005/2006, p.39) indicate that the required target for Final Warning performance is being met, and those which used intervention programmes have improved thinking and behaviour in attitudes to offending. However, the AC suggested that a lack of training is jeopardising the system (2004, p.18). Therefore, the Government Green Paper “Youth justice – the next steps (2003)”, which is the companion to the “Every Child Matters” paper felt that substantial improvements had been made into the youth justice system under the 1998 Act, however recommended the strengthening of parenting interventions and community intensive supervision as the main response to repeat and serious offending. Many of the recommendations were embodied in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which implements new procedures of youth rehabilitation orders for offenders under the age of 18. Moreover, procedures regarding referral orders and custodial sentencing have been bolstered. The CJIA further addresses the reality of increased foreign offenders within the youth justice system. Muncie further highlights the example of the “asylum seeker” and the “dangerous foreigner” that “have become typically constructed as prime targets for sustained punitive intervention” (Muncie, 2009). Section 93 of the CJIA addresses the status of “foreign criminals” and section 134 of the CJIA provides that Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 shall apply to any offenders subject to a claim for asylum. The above analysis highlights the complex issues contributing to youth crime. Moreover, it is evident that the media representation of youth crime clearly informs public opinion, which can be misguided in its perception of youth crime offender patterns. This in turn leads to a public opinion heavily in favour harsh penalties, whilst ignoring the potential benefits of restorative justice in addressing repeat youth offending patterns. This is further highlighted by the dichotomy between public opinion and results of surveys considering the efficacy of the 1998 Act provisions in practice. To this end, it is submitted that the Government legislative measures whilst undoubtedly motivated by public opinion have been welcome in attempting to address the complex factors contributing to youth crime. However, somewhat ironically the Audit Commission surveys suggest that it is the custodial sentences and concomitant impact of rehabilitating the offender post incarceration that has proved most problematic for the youth court system in preventing repeat offending. Accordingly, it is submitted that more consideration should be given to the restorative justice paradigm in the youth justice system. Whilst by no means a panacea, it may work towards increasing efficiency within the youth court system with the resultant impact of increasing public confidence in the system. Bibliography Aldgate., J (2001). “Safeguarding and Promoting the Welfare of Children in Need Living with their families” in L-A Cull and J Roche. The Law and Social Work, Contemporary Issues for Practice. Basingstoke Palgrave Ashford (2007). Towards a Youth Crime Prevention Strategy, London: Youth Justice Board. Audit Commission (1996). Misspent Youth, Young people and crime. London: Audit Commission. Audit Commission (2004). Criminal Justice National Report, Youth Justice 2004: A review of the reformed youth justice system. London: Audit Commission. Bainham, A. (2005). Children – The Modern Law. (3rd Edition). Bala, N, Hornick, J., Snyder, H. & Paestch, J. (2002). Juvenile Justice: International Comparisons of Problems and Solutions. Thompson Educational Publishing. Beckett, C. (2007). Child Protection: An Introduction. Sage Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Volume 2: Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books (reissued 1999). Buchanan, A., (1995). Young people’s views on being looked after in out of home care under the Children Act 1989. Children and Youth Services Review, Volume 17, no 5/6, pp681-696. Burrows (2003). Evaluation of the Youth Inclusion Programme, End of Phase One Report. London: Youth Justice Board. Butler, I., & Drakeford, M. (2005). Scandal, social policy and social welfare. Revised second Edition, The Policy Press. Crawford. A., & Newburn, T (2002). Recent Developments in Restorative Justice for Young People in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 2002 Volume 42, No. 3. Culll., L.A., (2001) “Family Breakdown” in L-A Cull and J Roche (eds). The Law and Social Work, Contemporary Issues for Practice, Basingstoke, Palgrave. Dance, D., and Rushton, A. (1999) Sibling separation and contact in permanent family placement. In “We are family: sibling relationships in placement and beyond”, Mullender, A. (ed), London: BAAF. Davidson, J. (2008). Child Sexual Abuse: media representations and government reactions. Routledge. Department of Health Framework for the assessment of children in need and their families- pack. (DOH 2000). Dominelli, L (2009). Introducing Social Work. Polity Press Dominelli, L (2002). Anti-oppressive social work theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan Eekelaar, J., & Dingwall, J. (1990). Reform of Child care law: a practice\al guide to the Children Act 1989. Jane Fontin (2003). Children’s Rights and the Developing Law. Cambridge University Press Garrett, P.M., (2003). Remaking Social Work with children and families: a critical discussion on modernization of social care. Routledge. Garret, P M (2009) Transforming Children’s services? Social work, Neoliberalism and the modern world. Open University Press: Mc Graw Hill Ghate, D. & Ramella, M., (2002). Positive Parenting. London: Youth Justice Board. Government Paper: Every Child Matters at www.everychildmatters.gov.uk accessed October 2009 Government Green Paper: Youth justice – the next steps Available at www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations accessed October 2009. Graham, J. & Bowling, B (1995). Young People and crime. London: Home Office Hester (2002) One Step Forward and Three Steps Back? Children, Abuse and Parental Contact in Denmark. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 14:3 pp. 276-279. Home Office (1997) No More Excuses: A new approach to tackling youth crime in England and Wales. London Home Office. Home Office (2003). Restorative Justice: The Government’s Strategy. A Consultation Document on the Government’s Strategy on Restorative Justice. London Home Office. Hough & Roberts (2003). Youth Crime and Youth Justice: Public Opinion in England and Wales: ICPR research paper no.1 London: ICPR. Howe., D. (1995). Attachment Theory for Social Work Practice. Palgrave Macmillan. Johnstone, G. (2002). Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Jordan., L,. (2001). “Practising Partnership” in L-A Cull and J Roche (eds). The Law and Social Work, Contemporary Issues for Practice. Basingstoke Palgrave. Law Com. No 172 “Review of Child Law –Guardianship and Custody” (1988). Lowe, & Douglas. (2006). Bromley’s Family Law. (10th Revised Edition). LexisNexis UK. Morris., S. & Wheatley., H.(1994) Time to listen: The experiences of young people in foster and residential care, London: Childline. J. Muncie. (2009) Youth and Crime. Sage Publications Padbury, P., & Frost, N. (2002).Solving problems in Foster care: Key issues for young people, foster carers and social services, London: Children’s society Probert, R. (2006) Cretney’s Family Law. (6th Revised Edition) (2006) Sweet & Maxwell Quinton, D., Rushton, A., Dance, C., and Mayes, D. (1997) Contact between children placed away from home and their birth parents: Research issues and evidence. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, vol 2, no 3 pp393-413. Sayer, T. (2008) Critical Practice in Working with Children, London: Palgrave Sinclair, I., Wilson, K., and Gibbs, I. (2001). A life more ordinary: what children want from foster placements. Adoption and Fostering, Volume 25 No 4 pp.17-26 Smith, R. (2007). Youth Justice: ideas, policy and practice. Willan Publishing Social Work Practice Handout 7: The Children Act 1989: Thresholds Social Care Institute for Excellence: Has Service User Participation Made A Difference to Social Care Services? Position Paper No 3 2004 at www.scie.org.uk/publications/positionpapers/pp03.pdf Thoburn, J., Chand, A., and Procter, J (in press). Child Welfare Services for Minority Ethnic Families: The Research Reviewed, London: Jessica Kingsley. Ward., H. (1995) Looked after children: Research into practice. London HMSO Whitaker., D & Cook., J, (1984). “The experience of residential care from the perspectives of children, parents and caregivers” unpublished research report, Department of Social Policy and Administration, University of York, York. Williams, J. (2008). Child Law for Social Work. Sage Wilson, K., Ruch, G., Lymbery, M., & Cooper, A. (2001). Social Work: An Introduction to Contemporary Practice. Legislation: Children Act 1989 The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations Volume 1 Court Orders HMSO, Family Proceedings Rules 1991 Welsh Language Act 1993 Family Act 1996 Human Rights Act 1998 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 1998 Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 Children Act 2004 Family Proceedings (Amendment) Rules 2005 Websites: European Convention of Human Rights available in full at www.hri.org www.dh.gov.uk www.homeoffice.gov.uk www.opsi.gov.uk Read More