Institute of Criminal Justice Studies
Soft treatment for young criminals not working
Wed, Sep 2, 2009
The Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) is a multi-million pound initiative to keep the worst young offenders out of custody. Under the programme, criminals aged 10-17 are allowed to stay living at home after committing a series of crimes that, if they were adults, could earn them 14 years in jail.
The programme was designed to bring structure to young offenders’ lives, tackle the things that make them turn to crime and focus on areas worst affected by street crime.
But it is failing to either protect the public or rehabilitate the youngsters, according to researchers at the University of Portsmouth.
During the study, more than 90 per cent committed further crimes after their period of supervision and surveillance had ended. Many said they would have preferred to be sent to jail because that would remove them from their immediate circle of criminal friends and give them a chance to learn a trade.
The offenders’ crimes include grievous bodily harm, robbery and burglary. One of them told the researchers that the hardest part of intensive supervision was ‘getting out of bed’.
Another said: “ISSP is not a big part of my life. You just tell the workers what they want to hear and then carry on as normal.”
Tom Ellis, Nick Pamment and Chris Lewis, of the university’s Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, concluded that ISSP has
- not ensured adequate surveillance to ensure public protection;
- not been rigorously enforced;
- not had a positive effect on offenders’ attitudes;
- not provided supervision appropriate to offenders’ ages;
- not improved offenders’ life chances;
- not provided strong boundaries;
- not brought structure into young offenders’ lives;
- and not separated offenders from damaging environments or peers.
Ellis said: “It is clear, from whatever perspective you look at it, using any triangulation of methods, ISSP doesn’t work. It is time to stop flogging a dead horse.”
The study found that some of the young offenders said their punishment was out of proportion to their crime and they should have been jailed. One said: “I have done really bad stuff and I should have gone to custody [jail].”
Ellis said: “Neither youth custody nor ISSP is effective for high-risk offenders. Most of these young offenders seem to be asking to be put in jail but what they are really asking for is to be removed from their environment, taught job-related skills and given supervision in the form of structured mentoring.
“There was little problem with the commitment and application of the youth justice supervisors, but ISSP was a flawed intervention from the outset and they are effectively working with one hand tied behind their backs.
“The whole regime of dealing with young offenders needs a radical and urgent overhaul which focuses on what works or is likely to work rather than on political expediency and sounding tough.”
The researchers said that they carried out the research because, while the Youth Justice Board's own evaluations showed that ISSP was not reducing re-offending, it wasn't clear why. They therefore surveyed staff and young offenders in two Youth Offending Teams.
Ellis said that while the numbers in the study were not large by national standards, they did represent a large proportion of staff and offenders on the two ISSP areas studied.
A supervisor quizzed in the study said: “It’s just too late for a lot of the older offenders say, those aged 17ish. They know the system more than I do and it’s impossible to change them. By the time ISSP is given the young person is so into offending that stopping them, or even slowing them down, is unlikely.”
Intensive supervision and surveillance is for offenders who have been charged, warned or convicted on four separate occasions and who have already received one community service order or term in a young offenders’ institution [jail]; serious offenders (those at risk of custodial sentences of 14 years or more if they were adults); and those at risk of imprisonment or secure remand because they are repeat offenders.
The programme aims to reassure the public, reduce re-offending, tackle young offenders’ underlying problems, ensure surveillance is rigorous and consistent and cut the number of young offenders remanded or sentenced by 10 per cent.
The researchers found, as did many previous studies, that tough blanket conditions and applying more stringent breach rules made problems worse and resulted in higher numbers being jailed. Young offenders seem to benefit from quality rather than quantity of supervision, they report.
Critically, the study summarises all of the previous evidence on intensive supervisions and argues that there was no convincing evidence that ISSP was ever likely to be a success. Ellis said: “The evidence is overwhelmingly against intensive supervision. With low completion rates, high re-conviction rates and no concrete evidence of its success, it is surprising the scheme has not received more criticism.”
ISSP cost £32m between 2005-2007.
The study is published in the International Journal of Police Science and Management.