Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:38:34.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policies Into Practice: Intermediate Treatment and Community Service Compared

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Adrian L. James
Adrian L. James
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Applied Social Studies, University of Hull.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The philosophy and the policies for dealing with both juvenile and adult offenders in England and Wales have undergone a marked change in the last decade with the introduction of both the Children and Young Persons Act, 1969, and the Criminal Justice Act, 1972. The spirit behind the policies embodied in the first of these was intended to move juvenile offenders even further towards the provisions for children and young people in general and away from identification with adult offenders and the criminal process. In spite of this, many similarities remain between the two major innovations which emerged from these two pieces of legislation, which were intermediate treatment and community service. In terms of implementing these policies, however, wide differences have emerged in the speed, ease, and uniformity with which the different provisions have been introduced. Intermediate treatment, after a long struggle, is only just beginning to establish itself as a practical provision for juveniles whilst community service, introduced some years later, has now been fully implemented. This difference raises fundamental issues related to the implementation of certain areas of social policy. Although the failure of the 1969 Act to achieve the impact envisaged by its proponents has been attributed to its being only partially implemented and to lack of finance, amongst other things, comparison with the relatively successful introduction of community service suggests that there may also be important administrative factors underlying this failure which have been hitherto ignored.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , April 1981 , pp. 145 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Children in Trouble, Home Office, Cmnd 3601, HMSO, London, 1968, para. 8, p. 4.Google Scholar

2 See Bottoms, A. E., ‘On the Decriminalisation of English Juvenile Courts’ in Hood, R. (ed.), Crime, Criminology and Public Policy, Heinemann, London, 1974, pp. 319–46.Google Scholar

3 Tutt, N., ‘Delinquency – Social Work's Changing Role’, Social Work Today, 9:30 (4 04 1978), 13–18.Google Scholar

4 Draper, J., ‘I.T.: An Offer He Ought to Refuse’, Community Care, 260 (19 04 1979), 15–17.Google Scholar The recommendations of the recently published Black Committee Report on the child care system in Northern Ireland should also be noted in this context: Report of the Children and Young Persons Review Group, HMSO, Belfast, 1979.Google Scholar

5 Bottoms, A. E., ‘Reflections on the Renaissance of Dangerousness’, Howard Journal of Penology and Crime Prevention, 16:2 (1977), 70–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Non-Custodial and Semi-Custodial Penalties, (Wootton Report), Advisory Council on the Penal System, HMSO, London, 1970.Google Scholar

7 Haxby, D., Probation: A Changing Service, Constable, London, 1978, p. 23.Google Scholar

8 In spite of this overall emphasis on penalties, the Wootton Report did envisage the possibility of community service orders being included as a condition of a probation order (paras. 53–6) as well as being a separate sentence, but the Criminal Justice Act 1972 did not allow for this. The legislature were therefore more inclined to separate community service from welfare orientated supervision than were the Advisory Council on the Penal System. See also Morgan, Rod, Formulating Penal Policy: The Future of the Advisory Council on the Penal System, National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, London, 1979, p. 10.Google Scholar

9 Children in Trouble, op. cit.

10 Ibid. para. 20, p. 8.

11 A Future for Intermediate Treatment, Personal Social Services Council, London, 1977, p. 39.Google Scholar

12 Non-Custodial and Semi-Custodial Penalties, op. cit. para. 34, p. 13.

13 ibid. para. 25, p. 13.

14 ibid. para. 9, p. 3.

15 ibid. para. 38, p. 14.

16 R. Hood, ‘Criminology and Penal Change: A Case Study of the Nature and Impact of some Recent Advice to Governments’ in Hood (ed.), op. cit. pp. 375–417.

17 Non-Custodial and Semi-Ctistodial Penalties, op. cit. para. 34, p. 13.

18 Jones, R., ‘Community Service Orders and SSDs’, Social Work Today, 7:2 (15 04 1976), 43.Google Scholar

19 A Future for Intermediate Treatment, op. cit. p. 57.

20 Jones, R. and Kerslake, A., Intermediate Treatment and Social Work, Heinemann, London, 1979. p. 7.Google Scholar

21 Eleventh Report from the Expenditure Committee: The Children and Young persons Act, 1969 (Social Services and Employment Sub-Committee), HC 534–1, Session 1974–75, HMSO, London, 1975.Google Scholar

22 Reported in Community Care, 288 (1 November 1979), 4.Google Scholar

23 Non-Residential Treatment of Offenders under 21, Home Office, HMSO, London, 1962.Google Scholar

24 Children in Trouble, op. cit. para. 21, and Hood, op. cit. p. 421.

25 See Stevenson, O., ‘Care or Control: A View of Intermediate Treatment’, Social Work Today, 2:4 (20 05 1971), 3–6Google Scholar; Prins, H., ‘An Example of Compulsory Benevolence: Intermediate Treatment Examined’, Social Work Today, 3:4 (18 05 1972), 2–6.Google Scholar

26 Children in Trouble, op. cit. Appendix C, para, 1, p. 22.

27 See Bottoms, op. cit.

28 Hood, op. cit.

29 Tutt, op. cit.

30 Pitts, J., ‘Doing your Bird on the H.P.: The Changing Shape of Intermediate Treatment’, Howard Journal of Penology and Crime Prevention, 18:1 (Spring 1979), 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Eleventh Report from the Expenditure Committee: Children and Young Persons Act, 1969, op. cit. paras. 141–5.

32 ibid. vol. II, p. 396.

33 ibid. vol. I, paras. 107–8.

34 Tutt, op. cit.

35 Pitts, op. cit. p. 23.

36 Tutt, op. cit. p. 15.

37 Report of the Work of the Probation and After-Core Department 1972 to 1975, Home Office, Cmnd 6590, HMSO, London, 1976.Google Scholar

38 Home Office Circular 43/79, of 28 February 1979, indicated that Community Service has now been fully implemented and is available to every court in every area of England and Wales.

39 Probation and After-Care Statistics, England and Wales, Home Office, London, 1977.Google Scholar

40 Thorpe, D., ‘The Wakefield I.T. Project: A Radical Approach to the Management of Delinquency’, Social Work Service, 20 (06 1979), 48.Google Scholar

41 Thorpe, D., Paley, J. and Green, C., ‘Ensuring the Right Result’, Community Care, 263 (10 05 1979), 26.Google Scholar

42 Jones and Kerslake, op. cit. pp. 7–8.

43 Coe, E., ‘Community Service Orders for the Young?’, Community Care, 240 (22 11 1978), 22.Google Scholar

44 Draper, op. cit. p. 17.

45 Eleventh Report from the Expenditure Committee: Children and Young Persons Act, 1969, op. cit. para. 45.

46 Tutt, op. cit.

47 For discussion of the problematic nature of criminal statistics, see Black, D. J., ‘The Production of Crime Rates’, American Sociological Review, 35:4 (08 1970), 733CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kitsuse, J. I. and Cicourel, A. V., ‘A Note on the Use of Official Statistics’, Social Problems, 11:2 (Fall 1963), 131CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wheeler, S., ‘Criminal Statistics: A Reformulation of the Problem’, Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 58:3 (09 1967), 317CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilkins, L. T., ‘New Thinking in Criminal Statistics’, Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 56:3 (09 1965), 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 Pease, K., Billingham, S. and Earnshaw, I., Community Service Assessed in 1976, Home Office Research Study No. 39, HMSO, London, 1977.Google Scholar

49 Billis, D., ‘In Search of a Policy’, Social Work Service, 11 (10 1976), 11.Google Scholar

50 Young, W., Community Service Orders, Heinemann, London, 1979, p. 136.Google Scholar

51 Eleventh Report from the Expenditure Committee: Children and Young Persons Act, 1969, op. cit. para. 106, p. 34.

52 It is not, of course, being suggested that this is a relevant consideration to the debate, or even one which is open to easy interpretation or measurement. It is evident however, from articles such as ‘Intermediate Treatment? – Ridiculous!’, Youth Service, 12:6 (Jan/Feb 1973)Google Scholar, and Morris, P.. ‘Treats or Treatment’, Community Care, 75 (3 09 1975). 15–17Google Scholar, that I. T. engenders strong reactions in some, particularly those who feel that juvenile offenders should be punished not treated, and that these may be powerful factors in local politics.

53 Thorpe, op. cit.

54 Pitts, op. cit.

55 Ford, D., Children, Courts and Caring, Constable, London, 1975, p. 178.Google Scholar

56 Tutt, N., ‘Intermediate Treatment: The Integrated Approach’. Social Work Service, 20 (06 1979), 33–9.Google Scholar

57 ibid. p. 33.

58 ibid. p. 34.

59 See Coe, op. cit.

60 Community Care, 248 (25 January 1979), 7.Google Scholar

61 Young Offenders, Department of Health and Social Security, Cmnd. 8045, HMSO, London, 1980.Google Scholar See the Social administration digest (38 – 10/2 – 6.2) in this issue for further details.

62 Young, op. cit. p. 69.