By Matthew Van Poortvliet, Cassandra Popham, William Teager, Peter Henderson , et alThe Youth Endowment Fund’s vision is for every child to live a life free from violence. In the latest year, 40 children lost their lives to violence involving knives; 509 ended up in hospital; and 1 in 2 teenage children told us they changed the way they live because of the fear of violence. This is not okay. Each child affected by violence is a tragedy. Amid these tragedies lies a further injustice. While children from all backgrounds can face violence and deserve our full protection, children from certain ethnic backgrounds are less safe. Sometimes the statistics are deeply shocking. It should horrify all of us that a Black child growing up in our country is six times more likely to be murdered. It should also worry us when we hear that Black and Asian children are less likely to be referred for mental health support, or that Gypsy, Roma and Irish Traveller children face disproportionately high rates of school exclusions and suspensions. It doesn’t have to be like this. Sometimes, these terrible injustices are the consequence of appalling racial injustices rooted deep in our history. At other times, they are the result of recent, direct and unacceptable forms of racism — whether institutional or interpersonal. When compounded by other disadvantages, such as low income, unstable housing or higher risks of extra-familial harm, these inequalities create cycles of disproportionate harm that are difficult to break. Difficult, but not impossible. Ten years ago, Black children were 1.7 times more likely to be excluded from schools than White children. That is no longer true. Racial inequity does not have to be Ensure stop and search is fair and ‘intelligence-led’. Make Outcome 22 a positive outcome in the police outcomes framework. Monitor and improve access to psychological therapy. Deliver evidence-based support to children absent or excluded from school. Urgently reduce disproportionality and improve conditions in youth custody. This report sets out five actions that the new government can take to address racial disproportionality and keep our children safe: Ensure stop and search is fair and ‘intelligence-led’. Make Outcome 22 a positive outcome in the police outcomes framework. Monitor and improve access to psychological therapy. Deliver evidence-based support to children absent or excluded from school. Urgently reduce disproportionality and improve conditions in youth custody These recommendations are not exhaustive – there’s always room to do more. However, by acting decisively and urgently on these evidence-informed priorities, the new Labour government has an opportunity to deliver meaningful change, reduce violence and start to build a society where all our children can live free from violence.

London: Youth Endowment Fund, 2025. 47p.

By Tim Bateman, Isabelle Brodie, Anne-Marie Day, John Pitts and Timi Osidipe

This is a narrative review of the literature relevant to understanding the relationship between ethnicity, disproportionality and diversion of children from the youth justice system. The review is part of wider research project, funded by the Nuffield Foundation and undertaken by the University of Bedfordshire and Keele University, exploring ethnic disparities at the gateway to the youth justice system and the impact of increased use of diversionary mechanisms in that context. Further information on the wider project is available on the Nuffield Foundation website at: Exploring racial disparity in diversion from the youth justice system - Nuffield Foundation. Methodology Literature is drawn largely from UK and US, English language, sources, from 2010 to the present. Grey literature is included where from an authoritative source. The focus is decision-making at the gateway to the youth justice system with a particular emphasis on the mechanisms whereby children are drawn into, or diverted from, formal processing and the extent to which those decisions are characterised give rise to disparity. Search terms were used flexibly and in combination. Disproportionality and the youth justice system Concern about the over-representation of children from minority backgrounds in the youth justice system is long-standing and evidence of disparities are well established. In his government commissioned 2017 review of the treatment of Black and other minoritised individuals within the criminal justice system, David Lammy MP noted that disproportionality in the youth justice system was his ‘biggest concern’ highlighting that ethnic disparities among children receiving criminal disposals had increased in recent years. In the year ending March 2022, 29 percent of children receiving a formal sanction came from a minority background compared to 19 percent a decade before. Similarly, while slightly fewer than one third of the child custodial population came from a minority ethnic background in 2012, a decade later the equivalent figure was in excess of half.

London: Nuffield Foundation 2023. 59p.

By Traverse

Overrepresentation of ethnic minority children in the youth justice system remains an enduring and unacceptable feature. The Youth Justice Board (YJB) commissioned Traverse to conduct research into the drivers of ethnic disparity in reoffending rates. The aims of this research are to offer a fuller understanding of the criminogenic (crime causing) contextual factors that may drive ethnic disparity in reoffending rates and understand the seldom heard perceptions of children with experience of the youth justice system regarding the support and interventions they have experienced. This report focuses on the qualitative strand of the research, which consists of 19 interviews with children with proven reoffences known to services and three focus groups with 22 practitioners from Greater London, East and West Midlands and North West England. Children and practitioners were asked to share their experiences of interventions to prevent reoffending, factors that contribute to reoffending and the support required for children from different ethnic minority groups to prevent reoffending. There is also an Analysis of reoffending data report which should be considered alongside this report. The findings from this research illustrate four key thematic drivers of ethnic disparity in offending rates for children. Marginalisation of individuals and communities Nearly all children interviewed had been excluded from school prior to, or as a direct result of their first offence. Exclusion removes consistency from children’s lives and makes it harder for practitioners to engage with them in a safe space. Children want educational courses to be a part of their reparations, to help them gain skills and achieve their aspirations. Poverty and social class were key issues highlighted by both practitioners and children that influence offending and reoffending rates. These background factors contribute to a system in which ethnic minority children were overpoliced but under protected. Individual, institutional, and systemic bias Children involved in crime are more commonly treated as adults – especially those from ethnic minority backgrounds – which can lead to a lack of safeguarding. Implicit and explicit racism within different institutions means ethnic minority children are treated differently to their White peers which contributes to feeling like they have already been written off. A lack of diversity among the police and courts system was felt by many interviewed to underline systemic racial bias. This perceived bias was reflected in the number of times children had been stopped and searched, much higher than their White friends. Furthermore, examples were given of explicit racial disparity in sentencing, where ethnic minority children received longer or harsher sentences than their White peers for the same offence. Weaknesses in prevention and intervention Building strong, trusting relationships with children was viewed as a prerequisite to delivering effective interventions. Where this did happen, children spoke positively about their interactions with caseworkers. However, this was not always possible due to a lack of time and resources. Additionally, a shortage of wraparound services such as Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services and employability support was identified as a potential driver for reoffending. Negative experiences of the wider youth justice system The lack of information for children navigating the youth justice system is reported to be a driver of ethnic disparity in reoffending rates. This is exacerbated by negative experiences of police custody and inadequate legal representation as reported by many children. This, plus the failure of sentencing to account for children’s needs and experiences means interventions to reduce reoffending are not as effective as they could be. Recommendations ◼ exclude children from education only as a last resort ◼ prioritise funding for local services aimed at children ◼ offer online tutoring for excluded children ◼ provide weekly allowances for children at risk of reoffending ◼ standardise intelligence collection ◼ increase diversity within the system ◼ amplify the voices of youth justice practitioners ◼ support practitioners to tackle issues of race ◼ provide training and support for staff working with children from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities ◼ increase funding for youth justice services ◼ extension of statutory intervention timelines ◼ formalise handover processes ◼ empower practitioners to tailor interventions to children’s individual needs, interests, and aspirations ◼ limit out of area moves wherever possible ◼ enable practitioners to share practice across services and localities ◼ embed youth justice practitioners in police custody suites.

London: Youth Justice Board, 2023. 46p.

By Rachel Worsley, Anna Beckett, Charlotte Baker (Ipsos UK) - Kevin Wong, Samuel Larner, Gavin Bailey, Sonny Osman, Anton Roberts and Linda Meadows

This research project investigated the use and quality of pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in the youth justice system. The research also explored whether PSRs might contribute to racial disparity in sentencing decisions as identified by previous YJB-funded research. PSRs bring together important information about the child to help inform the court’s sentencing decision.

Description

The research was conducted by Ipsos, an independent research company in collaboration with Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU), funded by the Youth Justice Board (YJB).

The authors analysed a sample of 95 PSRs from five Youth Justice Services (YJSs) in England, assessing their quality and language. They also conducted interviews in England and Wales with youth justice case managers and service managers, defence lawyers, judges, and magistrates.

Key findings

• Purpose: The findings suggest that PSRs generally serve a dual purpose: providing background information on the child and recommending a sentence. However, there’s sometimes tension between advocating for the child and presenting a balanced picture for sentencing.

• Quality: PSRs were generally of good quality – i.e. they broadly reflected the requirements of the YJB Guidance on writing PSRs. Sentencers substantiated this finding, reflecting that the quality of children’s PSRs was typically good in their experience, and of better quality than adult PSRs.

• The authors found no differences in quality between PSRs for Black children compared to White children. However, certain sections – ‘Assessment of Child’ and ‘Conclusions’ – were often weaker overall, but this was the case for all children.

• Language used: The research examined the language used in a sub-sample of PSRs and found differences between PSRs for Black and White children.

  • Differences in number of quotations included from the child themselves (more common for White children) and from victims/witnesses (more common for Black children).

  • Black children’s PSRs were more likely to refer to co-defendants, while White children’s PSRs referred more frequently to co-accused. Additionally, Black children’s PSRs more frequently referred to negative peer influences.

  • It is important to note that these differences were identified in the sample, but due to the small number of PSRs reviewed these findings are not statistically significant meaning we do not know whether we’d find these same differences if we looked at more PSRs. However, they do indicate that further research might be useful.

• The research also found that it can be difficult for children and their families to understand the language and terminology used in PSRs, making it difficult for them to engage with the content of the report.

• Challenges: PSR writers reported challenges in gathering information from schools and colleges, which sometimes resulted in incomplete or inaccurate information in the reports.

• Sentencers also felt the sentencing proposals included in the report may not always align with what’s realistically available in the community. There can also be tension between advocating for the child and maintaining objectivity.

• Limitations: While these findings are an important step in understanding the role and use of PSRs in youth court, the research findings are based on a reasonably small overall sample. Therefore, many of the findings warrant further research to confirm their relevance to all youth justice service.

Recommendations and next steps

The authors recommend reviewing the PSR guidance issued by the YJB, reviewing best practice in drafting PSRs and wider decision-making, and adapting the guidance accordingly.

• Updates to the case management guidance: The YJB provide guidance on case management and the production of PSRs. National guidance was issued in 2019 and updated more recently in 2022. The YJB will draw on the more detailed findings and recommendations to make further updates to the guidance as part of the regular updates in the near future.

• Wider work on courts and assessments: In 2023, all YJSs submitted a self-assessment of their work in court as part of the Standards for Children audit. Alongside an assessment of their court strategy, this audit focussed on the quality of their assessments, including PSRs. The outcomes from this audit will be used alongside the findings of this research to provide best practice on writing and utilising PSRs to the sector.

At the YJB, we remain determined to change the system, but we cannot change it alone. Our work with partners in the courts and youth justice services are important to us making any progress in this area.

London: Youth Justice Board, 2024. 74p.