Putting Our Communities First

Comments on the Communities First Consultation
 

We respond to this consultation as parents and teachers with general observations rather than by answering the specific questions. In considering the proposals we discussed the behaviour of young people today and our own behaviour when young. People recalled their own run-ins with the police for youthful indiscretions and how they felt as a consequence.
 

1) The nature of the problem

We are very concerned that this proposal seems to be based on people's impressions rather than on hard evidence. The consultation talks about people's feelings, and whilst it is clearly important to address these concerns, it may be more appropriate to offer reassurance rather than take draconian action against young people. For example, older people express fears about being attacked, yet the evidence suggests that young people are more commonly the victims of attack. We think it is better to reassure people with the facts, rather than respond to their fears with actions that suggest their fears are justified.

We would suggest that one of the major problems lying behind people's fears about young people is that society has become atomised. Older people tend to move around in cars and so have left the streets to young people. Without the moderating influence of older people, young people can be over-boisterous and seem threatening. We contrast the streets in a Scottish city with streets in European cities where whole families are out at night. We see the problem as a community problem, not one that should be blamed on only one section of that community. We would suggest that the solution is a whole community one.
 

2) The demonising of young people

Our main concern is that these proposals, whilst being quick to say that the majority are decent and hard working, actually demonise young people.

One of the "crimes" cited as evidence of anti-social behaviour is "groups of young people hanging around". So "hanging around in groups" even without any other form of misbehaviour would now seem to constitute a crime yet it is natural for teenagers to hang around in groups at that stage in their development. Even "decent" and "hard working" youngsters gather in groups but we have heard reports of police breaking them up if there were more than seven in the group for no other reason than the number in the group.

We therefore note with considerable alarm the suggestion that the police should have a new power to disperse groups of children and young people aged under-16 and remove them to their place of residence where an officer has reason to believe

"that any member of the public has been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed as a result of the presence or behaviour of groups of two or more persons in public places in any locality in their police area" (sptc emphasis)

This is a case of society declaring war on all young people. It would mean that youngsters would no longer be able to walk down the street with even one friend without falling under suspicion. This action will alienate many young people in the same way that the "suss" laws alienated many in ethnic communities.
 

3) Upper age limits

This targeting on young people is made clearer by the proposal that there should be an upper age limit for Community Reparation Orders. It is suggested that the limit might be 21. We do not support this proposal:

• We're not clear why there should be a particular focus on young people.
• Limits such as this always cause problems at the borders. What happens if a group of young people behave badly and one is 21 and 2 months, while the rest are under 21? In practice it may only be applied to young people, but there should be no defined limits
• 21 is a strange limit. It does not tie in with any other legal age demarcation.

4) Preventing anti-social behaviour - parents and families

We have never had any problem with the idea that young people who break the law should face the consequences. Indeed it is very important that they should. However, the approach by the Children's Panel is to review the circumstances and deal appropriately with the individual, rather than apply some statutory punishment code. We strongly support this approach. Moreover, it would seem that the current system is working as, despite the thrust of this proposal, we are told that the 2000 Scottish Crime Survey found an improvement in terms of anti-social behaviour since the 1993 and 1996 surveys.
 

5) Parallel action in schools

In our discussions, the point was well made that the youngsters highlighted in this document are also in our schools; that schools are being urged to work with the youngsters and adopt a series of strategies for helping them to overcome their bad behaviour. Schools and authorities that develop successful strategies - such as the East Ayrshire "staged intervention" approach - are praised and held up as examples of good practice for others to follow. An important feature of such strategies is that young people are involved in the process and their views are listened to. The valuable role that peer groups can play in moderating behaviour is also recognised. Research backs these approaches. Gwynnedd Lloyd of Edinburgh University's education faculty has found that there are many reasons why young people may be disruptive and disaffected in school, including family difficulties, poverty, drug use and peer pressure. Her research suggests that support works best, particularly "when schools recognise the diversity of reasons for problems and build strategies around the individual circumstances of young people, taking account of their lives and views". This is the approach currently adopted by the Children's Panel and we can see no evidence why there should be a move away from current practice in the community when the parallel practice in schools is being advocated and is of proven success.
 

6) Children need a second chance

In growing up youngsters often test the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and sometimes end up on the wrong side. We feel strongly that youngsters should be made aware that they have crossed an important boundary in their behaviour but that they should not be identified for the rest of their life as a criminal. As our discussions of our own youthful actions showed, young people make mistakes but, given the opportunity to correct those mistakes, grow up into very responsible adults. We feel very strongly that young people should not be criminalised for youthful mistakes. One of the important aspects of the current panel system is that it gives youngsters a second chance rather than condemning them as criminals.
 

7) Punishment as an option

We understand that at present young people are only held in a secure unit when they are thought to be either a danger to themselves or to the community. In such circumstances tagging cannot be an acceptable alternative. It could only be viewed as an alternative, if detention were seen as a form of punishment, which it currently is not. We would first have to change the use/purpose of detention.

In terms of punishing parents for children's crimes, it is important to recognise that parents in such circumstances are often unable to cope and need support, rather than punishment. The main deficit at present is a lack of support provision. Children's Panels often call for action that cannot be delivered. Tagging children and imprisoning parents will do nothing to help particularly not as the state seems to be such a poor surrogate parent. Studies of children who are looked after by the authority for whatever reasons show that they do particularly badly at school and that many end up homeless and on the street.
 

8) Conclusion - the real need for more support

We accept that young people should not be allowed to get away with criminal behaviour but we do not think they should be criminalised for simply gathering in groups. Moreover, we strongly support the current approach to youthful crime as operated through the Children's Panels that start by looking at the young person and assessing their needs. The main problem with the current system is that the resources are not there to back up recommendations for support and help made by the Children's Panel. We see the way forward as being addressing this shortfall in resources, including providing sufficient secure places for youngsters who are deemed to be a risk either to themselves or society.

Indeed, we generally feel that the way forward is to make sure that current legislation works rather than bring in new powers. For example, some anti-social behaviour would be eliminated if youngsters were prevented from buying alcohol. Many parents would be delighted if more effort were made to ensure that the law in this area is implemented.

Otherwise we feel that there should be better support systems for parents, particularly of older primary/secondary children. These parents do not tend to have the same support network that they had when their child was younger, e.g. health visitors, parents groups, etc. It is particularly important that there should be immediate support for those parents whose children start getting into trouble when they reach a certain age. If the child is a "first-time offender" then the parents are not already in the system and will not have the support network they need.