Warning: include(/home4/crimetal/public_html/J1xBackup/modules/mod_poll/user.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home4/crimetal/public_html/index.php on line 8

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home4/crimetal/public_html/J1xBackup/modules/mod_poll/user.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/php53/lib/php') in /home4/crimetal/public_html/index.php on line 8

Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: Cannot send session cookie - headers already sent by (output started at /home4/crimetal/public_html/index.php:8) in /home4/crimetal/public_html/libraries/joomla/session/session.php on line 678

Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at /home4/crimetal/public_html/index.php:8) in /home4/crimetal/public_html/libraries/joomla/session/session.php on line 678
Early interventions, troubled youth and labelling


An educational resource at the heart of criminological teaching, debate, and research


Early interventions, troubled youth and labelling

User Rating: 3 / 5

Star activeStar activeStar activeStar inactiveStar inactive

Science-fiction visions of dystopian societies, such as OrwellвАЩs Nineteen Eighty-Four, Kurt VonnegutвАЩs Harrison Bergeron and Philip K DickвАЩs Minority Report, all three turned into successful films, are increasingly evoked in discussions of changes in society, individual freedoms and state control of criminal justice. These stories, in the eloquent words of Lucia Zedner, tap into our worst fears of:

"..a shift from a post- to a pre-crime society...in which the possibility of forestalling risks competes with and even takes precedence over responding to wrongs done. In consequence, the post-crime orientation of criminal justice is increasingly overshadowed by the pre-crime logic of security. [...] Pre-crime, by contrast, shifts the temporal perspective to anticipate and forestall that which has not yet occurred and may never do so." (2007: 262)

In Predicting Young Criminals, his recent article for CrimeTalk, Sean Creaney is therefore in good company in seeing parallels between Minority Report, with its pre-crime social exclusion of predicted murderers, and the pre-emptive turn in youth justice developments. He reflects on the role of practitioners required to assess the likelihood of young people becoming offenders, using fallible methods, and then to direct them onto youth offending programmes before they have offended. 

One concern is the resultant dangers of вАШcontaminationвАЩ: learning about and getting drawn into crime by others in a criminal justice setting. There can be few practitioners in criminal justice who have not felt the ethical tensions between assisting and controlling those in their caseloads. In particular, placing enforceable requirements on young people who have not been through the court process nor convicted of offending can be experienced as a violation of basic freedoms and human rights - because they are imposed without the authority of the rule of law and due process protections, including the presumption of innocence. Even if consent is first obtained there will be, at least informal, conditions and obligations. Creaney also raises concerns about the likely counterproductive effects of interventions that focus primarily on negative aspects of individuals and their lives, perceiving and defining them by these terms rather than by any strengths they may have; in effect, instead of building them up, putting them down, with all the contingent difficulties of such labelling. Most of us know someone who was strongly and lastingly affected by degrading category labels applied to them at some point in their childhood. Stigmatising names can shape futures. 

It sometimes feels as if we have already crossed a boundary and moved into this Minority Report nightmare, or into the cock-eyed world of Lewis CarollвАЩs Through the Looking Glass where for the White Queen it makes perfectly good sense for punishment to precede a trial and for the trial to precede the crime. In real life, lots of examples can be found. The increasing use of precautionary checks and records, and of security restrictions, gives us a sense that we are moving closer to a paranoid, totalitarian society where we are mistrusted, watched and controlled.

The proliferation of out-of-court interventions such as ASBOs (now CPIs or crime prevention injunctions), YISPs (or youth inclusion and support panels) and, the latest example, the вАШTroubled FamiliesвАЩ programmes, together with extensive cuts to social benefits and public and third sector funding, recent discussions about redefining poverty, tackling вАШworklessnessвАЩ, and evicting people from social housing, can all make these forebodings seem more real. But the sinister elements can be exaggerated.

It is easy to spot a nasty side to the Troubled Families Unit. The TF Policy (yes it sounds like вАШtough policyвАЩ, and it even comes with appointed вАШTroubleshootersвАЩ), was launched in March 2012 by the Department for Communities and Local Government [CLG] and is a payment-by-results programme that will reward upper tier local authorities with up to ¬£4,000 per family if they get children off the streets and into school, reduce youth crime and antisocial behaviour, and put parents on a path back to work. At least ten local authorities have signed up so far and many more are likely to do so in the hope of getting something back from the ¬£448 million scheme if they pay 60% of the costs themselves and meet the performance targets. Although voluntary for those families participating, arrangements can be made for parenting orders to be imposed. The tough-speaking Louise Casey leads the TFP, reporting to the CLG Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, who has compared himself to the gun-toting cowboy filmstar, John Wayne.

The TF programme has been condemned as punishing families for being poor, desperate and/or mentally ill. Different interpretations of the designation, вАШtroubled familiesвАЩ, combined with statistical errors in the estimated numbers of 120,000 such families have already caused controversy and scepticism. According to the documentation, families selected for the intervention should be:

(1) involved in crime and anti-social behaviour;

(2) have children not in school;

(3) have adult(s) on out-of-work benefits; and

(4) cause high costs to the public purse.

But, as pointed out by Ruth Levitas (2012), the estimated figure of such families is based on a 2004 survey of families suffering multiple deprivation and, of the seven-item criteria applied in that earlier study, none of them referred to criminal conduct or antisocial trouble-making. There may be a narrow (or medium) overlap between the families highlighted in the 2004 survey and the intended recipients of TF policy but using the same statistics is clearly wrong. The figure of 120,000 is likely to be an underestimate of income-poor families especially in the current financial climate, but David Cameron and Louise Casey define troubled families as those who вАШboth have problems and cause problemsвАЩ. The subtext therefore is вАШtroublemakersвАЩ and the tabloid press has already run articles referring to them as вАШScumbagsвАЩ.

Concern about labelling, though, should cut both ways. Those of us who object to the vilifying of the poor and the demonising of young people can fall into similar habits of closed judgement ourselves. We evaluate politicians and government programmes quickly, happy to go along with pronouncements that confirm our existing prejudices or first suspicions. IвАЩve never met Louise Casey but I have tended to join others in referring to her by the unflattering moniker of Asbo Queen, and to go along with the judgements of her as hard and lacking in compassion. ThatвАЩs prejudice based on reputation, and maybe it is unfair. Others present a different view. Apparently, in a recent speech to London Calling she moved the audience to tears in telling them about the suffering of families she had encountered. Similar points can be made about other individuals associated with the TFP. Matthew Taylor (2012), Chief Executive of the RSA and keen advocate of social equality, has commented that he knows people leading the programme and that they are passionate about breaking the cycle of intergenerational deprivation and the harm that can be inflicted on other members of disadvantaged communities.

The вАШTroubled FamiliesвАЩ Programme has some commendable features if we want to look for them. Local authorities are being encouraged to base the work on examples of successful family intervention programmes already established or piloted, such as the Westminster Family Recovery Programme and the Edge of Care Family Intervention Project in Torbay. Strengths of these include: a whole family approach rather than focusing on one person in the family; a single key worker to be the main point of contact; and a multi-agency involvement with representatives of each service working together on an agreed plan.

The involvement of various services beyond the criminal justice system is important. As a recent report by the Centre for Social Justice (2011: 12) has observed, the youth justice system has too often been a вАЬdumping ground, sweeping up the problem cases that other local authority services have failed to addressвАЭ. The opportunities for voluntary services to be involved or to provide the keyworker service are also to be welcomed. They may have more success in gaining the confidence of families who may be resistant or mistrustful of public services associated with enforcement and sanctions.

In any case, whatever the top-down policy intentions, there is evidence that practitioners assert their own interpretations and values in determining the purpose of their work and what needs to be done when faced with the unhappy lives of service users and their painfully disadvantaged children.

In my own research on youth justice and probation practice over the years I have always been impressed by the passion to help, support and empower individuals and their families irrespective of the repressive and punitive rhetoric attached to policy reforms under which they work. There are many recent examples of positive work being done by individuals and services, in the public and voluntary sectors, often in combination, to support young people and provide transformational opportunities for young people at risk or already offending. They deserve some credit.

Perhaps the main criticism to be made against preventive interventions aimed at young people, though, is that they come too late: for older children and teenagers growing up in neglectful or abusive families the worst damage has already been done (Burnett 2007). The best evidence of effectiveness in promoting healthy parenting and preventing antisocial behaviour comes from programmes that target 3-8 year olds (Fletcher et al. 2012).

Yet those ethical questions and moral qualms raised about preventive interventions for school children seem particularly pertinent when applied to infants, sometimes even before they are born. We may joke about tagging nursery children and about foetuses with ASBOs but our misgivings about stigmatising babies are real. Much depends on the principles which are applied and the underlying ethos. But also expectations matter.

Dystopian interpretations of change can be dangerous, as Lucia Zedner (2002) has argued. Not only is it unbalanced and unfair to play down the positives or simply overlook them, an emphasis on the worst elements and interpretations of programmes can have the effect of further reifying them. If a strengths-based approach is good for bringing out the best in young people and families, while negative labelling has self-fulfilling effects, the same might apply to programmes. 


Burnett, R. (2007) вАШNever too early? Reflections on research and interventions for early developmental prevention of serious harmвАЩ, in: Blyth, M., Solomon, E. and Baker, K. (eds.) Safeguarding Young People, Protecting the Public and Managing Risk, London: Policy Press.

Centre for Social Justice (2012) Rules of Engagement: Changing the heart of youth justice. A policy report of the Youth Justice Working Group. London: Centre for Social Justice.

Creaney, S. (2012), вАШPredicting young criminalsвАЩ CrimeTalk, http://www.crimetalk.org.uk/library/section-list/38-frontpage-articles/803-predicting-young-criminals.html 6 June 2012, Accessed 21/06/12).

Fletcher, A., Gardner, F., McKee, M. and Bonnell, C. (2012) вАШThe British governmentвАЩs Troubled Families ProgrammeвАЩ, British Medical Journal, 344, June, p.344.

Levitas, R. (2012) вАШThe government has misrepresented research findings on вАЬtroubled familiesвАЭ, blaming the poor, not coalition policies, for rising poverty levelsвАЩ LSE British Politics and Policy Blog, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2012/06/14/troubled-families-misrepresentation-levitas/ 14 June 2012 (Accessed 21/06/12).

Taylor, M. (2012) вАШNo family resemblance to the truthвАЩ, http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/politics/no-family-resemblance-to-the-truth/ 13 June 2012 (Accessed 13/06/12).

Zedner, L. (2007) вАШPre-crime and post-criminology?вАЩ, Theoretical Criminology, 11(2), 261-81.

Zedner, L. (2002) 'Dangers of dystopias in penal theory - Extended review of David GarlandвАЩs The Culture of ControlвАЩ, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 22(2), 341-66. 

Ros Burnett is a Research Associate of the Centre for Criminology, University of Oxford. Ros obtained her doctorate in Social Psychology from the Department of Experimental Psychology in Oxford and, before entering academia, was a probation officer and relationship counsellor. She has been a member of the Centre for Criminology since 1990 - apart from a two year period when she 'desisted from crime' - and she was the first Head of the Centre's Probation Studies Unit. Her research encompasses probation, youth justice and prison services, the unifying theme being interventions and processes that impact on criminal careers to limit reoffending and support desistance from crime.



# Sean 2012-06-29 21:57
Thanks Ros. Very interesting article. It is certainly important to provide a balanced argument and acknowledge the positive impact interventions can have on young people. Also, you rightly acknowledge that staff within youth justice do an excellent job, even in the face of punitive rhetoric. 

Some Youth Offending Teams run prevention programmes within the youth justice setting, targetting potential offenders. Do you think prevention programmes should be placed within youth justice or delivered within children's services? 

Lastly, do you agree with writers such as Roger Smith (alternative principles) and Goldson and Muncie (principled youth justice with integrity)?

Thanks again for the article Ros and thank you for mentioning my article, much appreciated. 

Sean Creaney
# Ros Burnett 2012-07-02 07:47
And thanks to you for your article Sean, which is what got me going on this, but extending some of issues to the Troubled Families initiative. As you can see, I did essentially agree with your argument about not criminalising children by sending them to a youth offending service before they have done anything. But I'm not against very early interventions by other services if they improve the start in life and future of disadvantaged children. I think the age of criminal responsibility should be raised. Too many babies and young kids are horribly neglected or abused by their parent(s) or so-called carers and doing everything possible to rescue them from that should be nothing to do with the criminal justice system. Programmes like Sure Start need more not less funding. I do agree with the arguments of Roger Smith, Goldson, and Muncie in many respects but I think sometimes the criticisms can tar everyone involved with the same brush. The arguments become too politicised and anything then seen as coming from 'conservative', now coalition, sources is automatically labelled as immoral or misguided. I think we have to differentiate before rushing to judgement.
# Mark Telford 2012-07-18 09:16
I enjoyed the article, thank you. What do you think are the implications of the McAra and McVie findings from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions of the apparently negative impace of system contact with even an, ostensibly, welfarist approach to juvenile justice?
# Ros Burnett 2012-07-19 08:42
Thanks Mark вАУ good question. Just revisiting that study вАУ for which I have the greatest respect, given its scope and academic credentials вАУ and their finding on this was that early intervention can backfire and cause more harm and good because the identification process is not watertight. I agree that the statistics from this study raise more doubts about the value of early identification, and there are no easy answers. The risk of stigmatising effects discussed above apply. Or it may be that the intervention wasnвАЩt soon enough or sufficiently life-changing. As always, the way in which early intervention is done is crucial: with an ethos of caring, accompanied by practical/ material provision, and with the purpose of benefiting that family.
Text Size