Current debates about young offenders and youth justice feature occasional concerns about knife crime, but when compared with the John Major/New Labour years it is no longer high on the political agenda. However, it is premature to see this as a progressive future of de-politicization, de-criminalization and de-institutionalization (Bateman 2011). The change has more to do with Coalition and subsequent Conservative governments’ focus on austerity after the financial crash of 2008, followed by the machinations over Brexit, Covid-19, war in Ukraine, a cost of living crisis and the current recession (Rogowski 2024). Furthermore, following the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the establishment of Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) and now the Youth Offending Service (YOS), the role of social work in youth justice has diminished. Nevertheless, this article calls for a critical social work approach to practice, one that acknowledges issues of deprivation and disadvantage leading to youth crime, deals with offenders’ individual issues and concerns, but also focuses on social justice more widely including structural issues related to poverty and inequality.

The demise of the post-war social democratic consensus and the rise of neoliberalism in the 1970s eventually led to an increasingly authoritarian response to youth justice; to condemn more and understand less as Major said in the 1990s. This resulted in ‘populist punitiveness’ (Bottoms 1995) or ‘penal populism’ (Pratt 2007), which sees varying degrees of punishment and control as key for addressing the problem. The culmination was the Crime and Disorder Act (CDA) 1998 and thereafter increasing concern with anti-social behaviour. It is a ‘get tough’ approach which is largely still with us.

In brief, the response to youth crime has changed from a concern with the welfare of the young person, to one of punishment. This has coincided with neoliberalism’s processes of economic deregulation and welfare retrenchment which have been filled by penality and the advance of punitiveness (Wacquant 2009). Instead of a focus on the deprivation and disadvantage that leads to much youth crime, such behaviour is seen as a matter of opportunity and rational choice with young people being responsible for their actions. From this punishment is a valid response, both as an expression of society’s disapproval and as an individual deterrent.

This article outlines the move to punitiveness, one coinciding with the development of the ‘exclusive society’ (Young 2007), and culminating in the CDA 1998. This is followed by a wider discussion of New Labour and its approaches to youth justice, one that neglected the socio-economic factors leading to youth crime. I then briefly examine role of YOTs/YOS which focusses on actuariaIist, managerialist and adulterative approaches (Muncie 2021). As alluded to, the coalition and subsequent Conservative governments have been pre-occupied by issues other than young offenders and youth justice. Finally, I turn to critical social work with young offenders, an emancipatory practice that deals with individual issues but has a view of a future more just and equal world.

The rise in popular punitiveness and penal populism

‘Populist punitiveness’ and ‘penal populism’ refer to the situation where politicians manipulate public concerns about law and order to justify more punitive legislation. Resulting legislation and policy changes can be traced back to the urban disturbances of 1991 in areas of Oxford, Cardiff and Tyneside which featured young men in large-scale violent confrontations with the police. This allowed long-standing concerns about young offenders to be distorted, exaggerated and presented in the media (Hagell and Newburn 1994).

The Bulger case, the murder of a two year old boy by two ten year olds, in February 1993 was also significant (Muncie 1999). Much of the media was concerned with how something must be wrong with society in general, and with youth crime and youth justice in particular. Simultaneously, the Conservative government was low in opinion polls and the police and media were pre-occupied with, for example, car crime in the form of ‘ram raiders’ and ‘joy/grief riders’, as well as young people who breached bail, the so-called ‘bail bandits’. The Conservatives hoped a tough law and order approach would help their electoral chances with the Criminal Justice Act 1993 and Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introducing increasingly punitive sanctions.

New Labour followed the Conservatives as Tony Blair emphasised being tough on crime and its causes, with both parties denying ‘the social basis of youth crime [and emphasising] punitive approaches’ (Littlechild 1997 p. 73). Furthermore, in pursuing its interventionist, supposedly ‘nipping crime in the bud’ approach, New Labour discredited the ‘old’ youth justice system as excusing young offenders’ behaviour because of their social circumstances. Importantly, however, it ignored the social work-led initiatives of the 1980s aimed at keeping young offenders out of the youth justice system wherever possible, lengthening the route to custody and the use of restorative justice. This had helped lead to a significant and sustained decline in recorded youth crime and those receiving custodial sentences, and is arguably social work’s most significant evidence-based achievement (Blagg and Smith 1989, Haines 2009).

As a result, the CDA 1998 continued with a focus on custody together with a respect agenda concerning anti-social behaviour (Goldson 2000, Squires 2006, 2008). This ‘get tough’ approach largely continues and is now carried out by YOS, the emphasis being on swift administration of justice, punishment, confronting young offenders with their behaviour and reinforcing the responsibilities of parents (Muncie 2021). Admittedly under the coalition government youth justice saw some gains in terms of falling youth crime, increased diversion and reductions in custody. However, although normally associated with an increased tolerance to young people who offend, this can be simply explained by the logic of austerity and the need to reduce public spending (Bateman 2014).

As stated, it is also important to note YOTs/YOS’ adoption of acturialist and managerialist approaches which involve the setting of objectives, the development of administrative/ professional tools and performance measurement, all at the behest of managers. And as for adulterative approaches, this refers to treating children in a similar manner to adults. Notions of responsibilization and remoralization are key; the former encouraging and enforcing individuals to take full responsibility for their actions, the latter incorporating values such as the work ethic and respect. In short, youth crime is seen as a consequence of the individual deficits of children and their parents rather than being related to the social problems and inequalities which do actually underlie most young offending (Jamieson 2009).

But what of social work in considering the aforementioned developments? The influence of neoliberalism on social work has been well documented (for example, Garrett 2003, Ferguson 2008, Rogowski 2020, 2024). It involved the dominance of managerialism and emphasises practitioners speedily completing bureaucracy aimed at rationing resources and assessing/managing risk. In work with young offenders this is particularly apparent in the ASSET / ASSETPLUS and ONSET forms which, although aimed at assisting decision-making in practice, are management tools to improve information gathering (Smith 2014; Whyte 2009). Indeed, such prescriptive form-filling within a managerial ethos led to the ‘zombification of youth justice’ (Pitts 2001).

Furthermore, the emergence of YOS practitioners has meant the influence of social work has diminished further, along with the emphasis on the young person’s wider social and economic environment. Moreover, whereas social work was pivotal to dealing with young offending this is no longer the case, an obvious manifestation of this is the separation of services for young people in trouble from mainstream children and families social work services (Goldson 2007). However, although what remains of social work is tied to a system primarily concerned with assessing and managing risk, and controlling the behaviour of young people who represent a threat to the community (Smith 2008), some spaces can still be found for critical practice.

Towards a critical social work practice with young offenders

Critical social work refers to practice derived from a host of critical social theories and approaches, all of which criticize the economic and social status quo, and the role social work takes in its maintenance. It involves a broad responsibility to seek social justice, challenge oppression and discrimination, as well as addressing peoples’ individual problems and issues. The concern is to promote social change, social cohesion and the empowerment and liberation of people while simultaneously dealing with individual problems and difficulties (Rogowski 2024). This involves analysis of the dynamic intersections of power and oppression including class, gender and ‘race’, as well as critical reflection whereby practitioners question their own values, biases and how they use or mis-use their power in either promoting or attempting to combat social problems.

Perhaps it is in the area of contextual safe-guarding and extra-familial risk/harms – in relation to ‘county lines’ drug networks, for example – where social work has a key role to play (Firmin et al 2022; Firmin and Lloyd 2023). Here practice aims to get away from looking almost exclusively at parents/carers as both the sources of potential harm and protection, instead acknowledging that during adolescence young people face a heady mix of physical, emotional and social changes as they start going out on their own, mixing with others and engaging in behaviour which can include youth crime. Critical social work in this area involves, for example: targeting the contexts/social conditions in which harm is occurring; locating contextual work in the field of child protection/safe-guarding rather than crime reduction; and builds on partnerships which reach into contexts where harm is occurring.

In addition, critical practice often amounts to ‘quiet challenges’ and resistance to actuarial and managerial orientated discourses and practices (White 2009). Despite such ‘quiet challenges’, the relevance of more overt critical social work practice remains. For example, ‘old’ critical/radical practice of the 1980s might have involved, for instance, group and community orientated strategies aimed at politicisation and consciousness-raising in relation to injustices in society, particularly those pertaining to young offenders (Rogowski 2003/04). Largely as a result of the 1998 reforms this might no longer be possible. However, politicisation and consciousness raising strategies can still be used on an individual basis. Work with a young offender could focus on their motivation for offending rather than simply issues of control and surveillance. Mirroring the views of the young people I have met, it could be pointed out that issues of boredom and material gain could be resolved by ensuring adequate, publicly funded, recreational, educational and employment/training opportunities were available to all young people. Discussions could turn to the need for equality (in terms of opportunities and outcomes) and social justice, and resulting redistributive taxation policies pending fundamental societal change, utopian as it seems. In the meantime, problems and difficulties as defined by young offenders, and their parents/carers, have to be addressed, these likely to include the aforementioned recreational, educational and employment/training issues. The young people could also be put in touch with groups and organisations which deal with their particular circumstances. Social workers’ links with, and pressure on, the managerial hierarchy, along with such as councillors and MPs still retain their relevance.

A social action approach, which draws on self-directed group work could also be utilised (Dearling and Skinner 2002; Mullender et al 2013). This involves talking and listening to young people on their own ground and discussing what the problems are, why they exist and how things can be changed. This leads to serious consideration about the real cause of social ills including youth crime, particularly injustice and inequality. At a practical level it might involve contacting the local council about the need for improved youth recreational facilities even in austere times. Contact with local councillors and M.P.s might also be required. The social action approach goes hand in hand with more traditional social work approaches which emphasise relationship-based work involving values of warmth, empathy and respect for persons (Ruch et al 2018).

Conclusion

If society cannot guarantee the equal worth of all citizens, mutual and self-respect, and the meeting of everyone’s basic needs, it cannot expect all citizens to have an equal stake in abiding by the law (Cook 2006). It also cannot dispense justice fairly and augment confidence in the law; criminal and social justice is, therefore, inseparable. However, we live in a society in which many young people do not have a sense of inclusion, of well-being and of social justice. It is a society which has become less tolerant and less just towards its youth. This is what critical social workers have to bear in mind in their work with young offenders, and importantly it involves a rejection of popular punitiveness or penal populism, instead working more constructively with young offenders. Smith (2014) offers a few pointers in this regard. For instance, a ‘problem-solving’ approach could be adopted. This can be linked to restorative justice, but also incorporates the principle that any problem associated with an offence should be addressed. Voluntarism and minimum intervention, the former requiring the consent of the young person in relation to such as making amends in relation to restorative justice, the latter referring to pursuing the least intrusive and coercive means of intervention achievable, are also important. Crucially all this highlights ‘giving hope’ and ‘having trust’ in young people (Stephen 2009).

Giving hope to young people means tackling the structural inequalities that lead to deprivation and disaffection. Even if we had a government seriously committed to addressing this, the current cost of living and economic crisis makes this that much harder. Youth unemployment is always a concern and the regurgitation of such as youth training schemes of the past is not an adequate response. Other issues relate to education and the increased academic orientation rather than traditional skilled manual trades. It is not hard to see that if young people live in a society that does not value manual skills, while simultaneously eulogising academic qualifications, the outcome can lead to disenchantment with school, truancy and youth crime.

Young people also need to be listened to, this ensuring that they are recognised and not merely demonised and ‘written off’. This listening involves having trust in young people and must be extended to fostering a dialogue about their marginalisation, such marginalisation helping to explain their involvement in offending. This has to go hand in hand with a wider dialogue with them about the impact of society’s often discriminatory discourse about, and actions upon, them.

Justice for young people might be becoming more elusive in a neoliberal world intent on criminalising measures to control those that do not ‘play by the rules’. However, critical social work, despite its reduced role in YOS, has an on-going responsibility to ensure that the U.K. does not become a bleak place to be for a young person in conflict with the law.