Law_&_Social_Work

This assignment is based upon the author’s practice learning opportunity. The assignment will cogitate and explore how legislation impacts upon service users and will also reflect upon how legislation promotes, influences, and in some cases be detrimental in the provision of anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory practice. The author has chosen to concentrate their study upon the key legislation of the Children Act 1989 (including amendments 2004) and Crime and Disorder Act 1998, that governs all aspects of dealing with children and young people who have become involved in crime and anti-social behaviour. During the assignment, the author will challenge concepts, highlight dilemmas in practice, and also identify any conflictions of legislation. Difficulties concerning the law and children and young people lies with the definitions of what ‘a child’ is differ greatly socially, biologically and also internationally, although the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child regards children as all those under the age of eighteen (Johns, 2003). A definition of ‘a child’ maybe that of dependency or vulnerability from one perspective but the law concerned with children has a firmly rooted definition of chronological age (Johns, 2003). The author recognises from practice that the teenage years of adolescence are confusing for young people in the sense that there are many age restrictions from smoking, the consumption of alcohol, driving, employment and consent of sexual activity. However, these laws positively impact upon them, protecting their vulnerability whilst seeking to not be too oppressive (Johns, 2003). Further to this, another confusing element of law is within criminal law the term ‘young person’ refers to offenders between the ages of fourteen and seventeen. This is coupled with yet more confusion in that the Children Act 1989 recognises children as people under sixteen in relation to ‘private’ proceedings, yet ‘public’ law social services’ responsibilities rest with them for people under the age of eighteen (Dugmore et al, 2006). Dugmore et al go on to describe the law concerning children and young people as a: “...mish-mash of justice and welfare measures lying uneasily together...” (2006, p.28) Leading on from this, through visiting courts during practice the author witnessed a colleague insisting the young person's welfare issues far outweighed the seriousness of his crime, and were indeed the sole influencing factor in his involvement within the criminal justice system. The young person was not able to articulate himself very well and due to this the Magistrate actively involved the social worker throughout the hearing. The author expresses if it not were for the social worker's knowledge of the Children Act 1989 (including amendments 2004), the young person may have had a very different outcome. The young person also benefited from my colleague acting as an appropriate adult which is a requirement by law of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 under section 1.7. He was in a vulnerable state, communication and understanding were facilitated greatly by my colleague, which is clear evidence of the safeguarding of the rights and welfare of children and young people, promoting the anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive values of social work practice. From the “Post-Bulger”, “Popular Punitiveness” (Dugmore et al, 2006, p.33) justice model, throughout the author's practice learning opportunity he was able to witness the youth justice ideology adoption of the treatment model (Alcock, 2008) (Knepper, 2007). Policies enforced through Acts such as the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 are now firmly rooted within appropriate punishment, confronting young offenders with consequences and responsibility of their crime, interventions designed to tackle particular factors in the young persons’ offending behaviour, with an emphasis on reparation and prevention within communities (Johns, 2003) (Adams, 2002). With models and policies specifically concerned with children and young people, this beyond question promotes anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practice. This incorporated through services and procedures meeting the needs of young people, rather than fitting them into an adult system inappropriate for their punitive measures, welfare and care. Sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 specifically concerned with youth offending, led to the creation of the Youth Justice Board (YJB) and Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), to work in partnership with police, probation and health services. The criminal age of responsibility was set at 10, Local Authorities' Child Curfew Schemes, Child Safety Orders, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO), Parenting Orders and Referral Orders materialised as a passing of the Act. Further to this the Act abolished the notion of ‘doli incapax’ in which prosecution had to prove that children under fourteen years of age knew the difference between right and wrong (Johns, 2003). The author notes from practice, some young people he worked with may be disadvantaged by this abolishment, as their upbringing had installed values and beliefs that differed greatly from the government’s ideology of what is right and wrong, which is also explored by Dugmore et al (2006). The Act has totally changed the way young people within the criminal justice system are treated. Dugmore et al (2006) advocate for how many elements of the Act, such the introduction of the YJB and YOTs have had an extremely positive influence and impact on young people. The availability of services through multi-disciplinary working within youth offending teams, have undoubtedly strengthened the protective factors needed for young people at risk or further risk of offending (Johns, 2003). The Youth Offending Service provides welfare for young people by law, and in doing so offers a comprehensive service in conjunction with a multi-agency partnership approach, offering services specifically aimed at covering the ‘big five’ welfare areas of health, education, employment and training, housing and social security (Alcock et al, 2003). The author believes without question this is further evidence of how anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive values of social work are promoted. The law enforcing a more proactive than reactive approach, sourcing the primary influences of offending and anti-social behaviour through ensuring key welfare areas of children and young people are attended to in conjunction with the main aim of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, that being: “prevent offending by children and young people”. This impacts positively on young people not only in limiting their involvement within the criminal justice system and further implications of being involved in the criminal justice system, but aims to ensure life-long benefits for young people through the provision of welfare services. However, Dugmore et al (2006) comment on how preventionism may arguably produce labelling and net-widening effects. Hence being a latent form of social control and indeed discriminatory and oppressive. Leading on from this, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) are enforced under section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. ASBOs do not only concern children and young people, but from practice the author believes ASBOs to have the opposite effect on children and young people, to what the government had intended. ASBOs are intended to be preventative, not punitive, a prohibition set by the courts to halt patterns of anti-social behaviour (Dugmore et al, 2006). On paper the ideology is sound and is also conducive with the other preventative aims of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. But in reality, the author notes failings in their desired effects. Media sources have long published the failings of ASBOs brandishing them as a ‘Badge of Honour’ (BBC, 2006). Rather than strengthening communities through inclusion, the author considers the law is excluding them, pushing them further away from society. In relation to this Hester (2002) (cited in Dugmore et al, 2006) notes an explanation may be that the communitariunism approach stigmatises individuals and: “…attempts to create community spirit might involve the exclusion of those unable or unwilling to 'belong'” (2000, p1.62) Dugmore et al (2006) comment on how ASBOs may also infringe on human rights with civil orders possibly resulting in criminal sanctions. Dugmore et al (2006) also suggest that although community based orders are positive in lowering custody sentences for young people, sentences to which may have a severely detrimental impact including recent suicides in custody. Clear evidence of the overall custodial effectiveness is repeatedly ignored by policy makers, and yet more evidence how the law impacts on young people. Throughout the author’s practice learning opportunity a high percentage of young people certainly did believe an ASBO gave them (in their eyes) a positive status within their community, or from some perspectives “anti-community”. However, where confusions of legislation impact further on young people is the misconception of the process of ASBOs. Throughout England and Wales, ASBOs are administered at the digression of the local authorities. Within the author’s local authority actual ASBOs are extremely low in number (Rhondda Cynon Taf YOS, 2009). There are three/four stages in which ASBOs are administered to young people, those including; a letter to parents/carers, a visit from police, an 'Acceptable Behaviour Contract' (ABC) and then the ASBO itself (Home Office, 2008). Most of the young people the author worked with believed themselves to be in receipt of an ASBO, when in fact they only had reached the first stage in the process. In combat of young people declaring their ‘badge of honour’ the author took time to explain the process of ASBOs to them. The reception of this information seemed to anger the young people further stating that they ‘must’ have an ASBO, disclosing the gravity of their anti-social behaviour. Jowitt et al (2005) explain the importance of achievements to children and young people, and with many of the young people the author worked with having difficulties with education and coming from deprived areas. Many of the young people possessed very little achievements or recognition of any aspects of the education or community life. The author expresses how the young people seemed to have felt deflated by the information he had given them, and in some ways saw themselves as non-achievers, as perhaps their ASBO may have been their only achievement. Due to the reaction of the young people the author found a new sense of despondency among them, as if their achievements had been taken from them (Jowitt et al, 2005). This created new barriers to working with the young people for the author, especially with information disclosed from some young people stating what they did to purposely gain (what they though to be) an ASBO. The author appreciates that with many young people, a letter to some young peoples' parents/carers or an ABC has been effective way of preventing further patterns of anti-social behaviour (Johns, 2003). But the attractiveness of ASBOs to young people from pro-criminal and pro-anti-social behaviour families, who feel excluded from society, has proven to be a significant downfall in the government’s initial ideology. This being a negative way in which the law impacts on young people and society. Throughout the author's placement conversational patterns of young people declaring themselves and seeing themselves as nothing else but criminals through the first stage(s) of an ASBO, clearly identified an opposite effect of the once thought deterrent of an ASBO. The author expresses the difficulty in engaging young people whom already see themselves as criminals through a misconception of civil law (Dugmore et al, 2006) (Jowitt et al, 2005). This 'backfiring' of ideology has actually created discriminatory and oppressive legislation from certain perspectives. Nacro (crime reduction charity) conducted research into the administration of ASBOs, revealing worrying evidence of “unrealistic conditions on young people which are almost bound to be broken” (Nacro, 2006). From practice the author has also witnessed courts and police setting young people up for failure with unrealistic, barely achievable goals. The author considers the misuse of such powers by police and courts to be oppressive and discriminatory, and also a poor management of time and money. Nacro (2007) comment further on the National Audit Office's report into ASBOs, declaring the 55% breach rate of ASBOs to be evidence of their ineffectiveness. Nacro (2007) also comment on overuse of ASBOs in place of programmes such as Individual Support Orders (ISOs) which target the roots of anti-social behaviour. From this the author questions how ASBOs in juxtaposition with ISOs may be oppressive and discriminatory as they do not tackle the underlying individual issues and needs such as young people's perceptions, poverty and deprivation. Further to this, through discussions between the author and a local YOT manager, the author found the local authority has introduced ‘ASBO Case Conferences’ leading to ISOs rather than ASBOs. This information, contrary to Nacro's findings may be viewed as extremely positive within the local authority. But a lack of unity in this delivery nation-wide concerns the author, as young people from other parts of the UK may be discriminated against because of this. In conclusion, we have identified and explored how law impacts on children and young people from legislative measures safeguarding their welfare and care, to conflicting legislation, unclear legislative processes, and ideological legislation 'backfiring'. Different Acts and confliction between acts may enable social workers to advocate for positive outcomes, as well as negatively affecting young people. The law can positively encourage and enforce the anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive values of social work through inclusion and needs led ideology. Whilst at the same time discriminate and oppress individuals through unclear procedures, exclusion, and a lack of unity across the nation. Whether elements of legislation impact positively or negatively, promoting or demoting anti-discriminatory or anti-oppressive practice, it is the up-most importance for social workers to possess an in-depth knowledge of legislation, continue to scrutinise legislation, policy and procedures for the benefit of service users, and in doing so this: “...has certainly enriched contemporary debates about ways of addressing youth criminality.” (Dugmore et al, 2006, p.44)