By Gauri Dubey

Published on: 17 March, 2025 23:25 IST

Introduction
Juvenile justice systems around the world have evolved significantly over time, with each country adopting distinct approaches to handling minors who come into conflict with the law. While India, the USA, and the UK share a common goal of rehabilitating juvenile offenders, their legal frameworks and philosophies differ based on historical developments, societal values, and legal principles.

India’s juvenile justice system has transitioned from colonial-era reformatory laws to a comprehensive framework under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, emphasizing rehabilitation while allowing exceptions for heinous crimes. The USA pioneered the concept of a separate juvenile justice system in the late 19th century, focusing on reform rather than punishment, although later legal reforms introduced stricter measures for certain offences. The UK follows a welfare-based approach, balancing rehabilitation with accountability through various legal provisions and specialized youth courts.

This article provides a comparative overview of juvenile laws in India, the USA, and the UK, tracing their evolution, key legal provisions, and the overarching principles guiding their juvenile justice systems.

JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA

The first legislation in India that dealt with ‘children in conflict with law’ was the Apprentices Act, of 1950 and this Act allowed courts to treat children who had committed petty offences as apprentices rather than imprisoning them.

The Reformatory Schools Act, of 1897 was another legislation passed during the pre- independence era, wherein children below the age of 15 years who were sentenced to imprisonment may be sent to reformatory schools instead of prisons.

In the post-independence era, The Children Act of 1960 was passed to provide for the care, maintenance, protection, welfare, education, training, trial, and rehabilitation of abused and neglected children. This Act was later replaced by the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986(‘JJ Act,1986’) which established a uniform law for the treatment of juveniles across the country.

In response to the Convention on the Rights of the Child,1989, the Indian Parliament repealed the JJ Act, 1986, and passed The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Though it was significant legislation, it had major loopholes and was replaced by The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2015 after the horrific Nirbhaya Case.

• The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2015(‘The Act’) defines ‘child’ as any person below the age of 18 years and classifies children into 2 kinds – Children in need of care and protection and Children in conflict with the law.
• The Act further classifies offences into heinous, petty, and which are serious and allows a juvenile between the age of 16-18 accused of a heinous crime to be tried as an adult.
• It also provides for the establishment of Juvenile Courts and Juvenile Justice Boards across the country.
• The main aim of The Act is to expand the scope and consolidate the laws relating to ‘children in need of care and protection’ and ‘children in conflict with the law’.

JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE USA

Until the 19th Century, juveniles accused of crimes were tried and subjected to the same punishment as adult offenders. The idea of a separate justice system for juveniles took birth here with the establishment of the first Children’s Court in Cook County, Illinois in 1889. The System focused more on rehabilitation of juveniles rather than punishment. It focused more on probation and juvenile detention centers were set up to hold the juveniles during their trial. The System developed over time with specialized judges and court procedures. However, it was also criticized for the lack of due process and protection of juvenile rights. Therefore, the US Supreme Court between 1960-70 delivered various landmark judgments that established the due process rights for juveniles.

One such case is In re Gault (1967) wherein the court held that juvenile defendants were entitled to due process rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. These rights included the right to be notified of criminal charges, the right against self-incrimination, the right to be represented, etc. It was not until the 1980s that harsher punishments like the death penalty were awarded to juvenile offenders.

However, in Roper v Simmons (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that under the Eight Amendment, it was cruel to impose the death penalty on any person who was under the age of 18 at the time of committing the crime.

In the US, the age of majority differs from state to state. While in a majority of the states, it is 18 years, in other states it is 21 years. The Juvenile courts of each state exercise jurisdiction over juvenile offenders. Whatever may be the age of majority in that particular state, the jurisdiction of the juvenile court over a juvenile offender cannot extend beyond his 21st birthday.

The juvenile justice system in the US has taken a highly reformative and rehabilitative approach. The primary objectives of this system apart from maintaining public safety include habilitation, rehabilitation, skill development, and effective re-entry of the youth into the community.

Evolution of juvenile courts in U.S.

In 1944 in Prince v. Massachusetts for the first time, juvenile courts were regulated under the doctrine of “parens patriae”. This suggests the state could act as a parent. and juvenile courts have the power to intervene whenever court officials felt the intervention was

in the favorable interests of the juvenile. Any offense committed was secondary to the offender. parens patriae was planned to deal with youth committing criminal acts, the discretion of this philosophy became increasingly broader and was constantly debated in court. Several pivotal cases ensued which helped the juvenile justice system evolve. Previously juveniles did not have the same rights as adults in court proceedings. A narrower range of rights was provided to them and few constitutional rights applied to them. Now it’s started to change. The rights of a juvenile vary from state to state while U.S Supreme Court has ruled some rights in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, which must be followed by every state.

Rights of a juvenile in U.S.

1.     Probable cause

An officer who wants to search or arrest a child for violating such an act must have probable cause. If he doesn’t have any probable cause, constitutionally he is not competent to search or arrest the child. Even in court proceedings, it plays an important role. For juvenile offenders a probable cause hearing needs to be conducted within fifteen days from the date of the first appearance. The probable cause hearing allows the juvenile to assess the strength of the State’s case, to question the sufficiency of the evidence, and to find out the evidence for the adjudicatory hearing if probable cause is established. If there is no discovery of the probable cause, the application must be rejected.

2.     Right to a phone call

The right to a phone call is another constitutional right for the juvenile accused. As per Miranda rights, a police officer is bound to allow the children to call their parents or attorney while he is in custody. If such authority did not allow him or her to do that, anything he or she will say to the police officer will not be admissible in court.

3.     Right to attorney

Right to attorney added in the U.S constitution through the sixth amendment. As per the sixth amendment, every accused shall be present before the court through his attorney in every stage of the trial. It also provides that if any accused can’t afford an attorney, the government will appoint one attorney for him without any fee.

4.     Right to notice of charges

Another constitutional right for a juvenile is to serve him or her a notice of delinquency act. As per In re Gault’s decision, the authority is bound to provide him with a notice. If the authority didn’t provide him or her any notice of charges then the accused statement will not be admissible in court.

5.     Right to confront and cross-examination

The person who is accused of an offense has the right to confront and cross-examine the witness. Though juvenile court proceedings are different from adult court proceedings a juvenile can take privileges of this clause. The right to confront is found in the sixth amendment. As per the confront clause “in all criminal trials, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”The Clause was aimed at deterring the conviction of a defendant upon written evidence (such as depositions or ex parte affidavits) without that defendant had a chance to face his or her accusers and to put their innocence and truthfulness to test before the jury.

In Mattox v. the United States, the Supreme Court held three essential objectives that the Confrontation Clause was meant to serve:

1. To assure that witnesses would verify under oath and appreciate the serious nature of the trial process;
   1. To permit the accused to cross-examine witnesses who testify against him; and

• To allow jurors to assess the credibility of a witness by examining that witness’s behavior.

In Lee v. Illinois, the Court held that the Confrontation Clause is one of the important constitutional shelters to improve fairness in the criminal justice system.

6.     The privileges against self-incrimination

Juveniles in court proceedings have the privilege to proclaim their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This tells that a minor cannot be forced to testify against him or herself.

7.     No right to a jury trial

Most nations do not permit jury trials in juvenile delinquency cases. The few nations that do permit jury trials often restrict them to only specific cases.

8.     The right to have charges prove beyond reasonable doubt

The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered that if a juvenile faces imprisonment or adjudication as “delinquent” as a result of juvenile court proceedings, then the state must confirm the charges against the minor “beyond a reasonable doubt.” If those penalties are not an issue, the state need only prove the charges by a “preponderance of evidence” standard.

9.     Difference between juvenile system and adult system

The philosophy behind the system: The juvenile justice system tries to rehabilitate and help juvenile offenders to build their lives again and help them to move away from criminal activity. On the other hand, the adult system directs more on punishment and the assumption that you should have known better than to commit a crime. It often overlooks the chance for rehabilitation and focuses on how to hold you responsible for your actions.

Crimes and delinquent act: Adults are charged for “committing crimes” while minors are charged for committing “delinquent acts.” If the delinquent acts are very severe, such as extreme crimes of violence such as murder, the court system may agree to charge the juvenile as an adult, in which case they would be tried in the adult criminal system.

Records and privacy: The juvenile justice system provides you with extra secrecy. The court makes boundaries for who can enter to see your records. Other adult court records, however, are accessible publicly. People can even come to watch your court proceedings if they want.

Holistic approach: In juvenile court, the magistrate will look at many aspects of you. This might include your household life, how you do in the academy, and any problems you may have. The method is to take a well-rounded look at you and what led you to court to seek out an outcome that will assure you do not come in court furthermore. In adult court, the magistrate only observes the legal aspects and facts of the case. While you may bring in outside factors to your defense, the court mainly looks at the legal aspects when making a judgment.

The United States Criminal Justice System and International Law

On the Rights of the Child the United Nations Convention, adopted in 1989, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, approved in 1998, have had a tremendous effect on the laws of many nations regarding juvenile justice. Their impact in the United States, however, appears to have been less. The United States is not significant to either of these actions and while American critics harshly condemn the reluctance of government officials in the United

States to concentrate on these signed agreements, the statutes developed under the Rome Statute and the Convention appear to be referred to rarely in American courts. To be sure, limited cases can be found in which a United States judge substantively depended on these international treaties to resolve important cases in juvenile justice matters.

Magistrates in the United States do not, though, completely avoid these covenants. Few courts here have talked about them and, presumably, have been somewhat influenced by them as instruments reflecting customary international law. Still, American courts either adopt them only on peripherally related matters or conclude that because the United States has not ratified the actions, they are not binding on United States courts in either federal or state jurisdictions.

JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE UK

Similar to the US, it was not until the 19th Century that a proper system was adopted to deal with juvenile offenders in England. It was done through the Children Act of 1908 wherein Juvenile Courts (re-named as Youth Courts in 1991) were set up to deal with juveniles. The English Youth courts have jurisdiction over juvenile offenders between the ages of 10 and 16 (those who are under 14 are called “children,” and those who are over 14 and under 17 are called “young persons.”). While those under the age of 21 are subject to special sentencing guidelines, criminals who are 17 years of age and above appear in regular adult courts.

The Children and Young Persons Act of 1933 was enacted by the UK parliament to consolidate all the laws relating to persons under the age of 18. This Act extended the powers of juvenile courts and raised the minimum age for the death penalty to 18 years. The juvenile justice system in Scotland is based on a policy that prioritizes the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. While in Whales, police have the authority to exercise discretion over juvenile disposition.

The minimum age of criminal responsibility (below which a child cannot be arrested) is 10 years in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, while it is 12 years in Scotland as per The Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019. CONCLUSION AND ANALYSIS The problem of juvenile delinquency is not restricted to India alone and is quite evident even in developed countries like the US and UK. Though the legislations vary from country to country, the approach adopted by these countries is similar.

However, to curtail the increasing rate of juvenile offences, lawmakers must adopt a deterrent approach and move away from archaic reformative practices. Stringent legislations are need of the hour and they must be properly enforced. The families of children and the communities must work hand-in-hand with the government to achieve better results.

Legal framework

A.   Age of Criminal Responsibility

Section 50 of the Children & Young Persons Act 1933 states: “It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of ten years can be guilty of any offence.”

B.    Definition of ‘Children’ and ‘Young People’

In the criminal justice system, a ‘child’ means a person under the age of 14; and ‘young person’ means a person who has attained the age of 14 and is under the age of 18 (see, for example, section 117 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998). However, for the purposes of the Children Acts 1989 and 2004, a ‘child’ is anyone who has not reached their eighteenth birthday. Although the phrase ‘juvenile’ is still widely used to describe young people under 18 in English it carries connotations of childish and of immature behaviour which can be seen as labelling and so we are increasingly seeking to use the term ‘young people’.

C.   Aims of Youth Justice System

Section 37 (1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 establishes that the principal aim of the youth justice system is “to prevent offending by children and young persons.”

D.   Prevention

Government policy in England and Wales has explicitly sought to promote work to prevent offending by young people. Through the work of local Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) a wide range of prevention work targeted at offenders and at those who are seen as being most at risk of offending has been developed.

One of the best and most cost-effective ways to reduce youth crime is to prevent young people from getting into trouble in the first place, by dealing with the problems that make it more likely they will commit crime or anti-social behaviour.

Early intervention to prevent young people offending could save public services more than

£80 million a year, according to the Audit Commission’s report Youth Justice 2004: A Review

of the Reformed Youth Justice System. Problems that may lead to a young person’s troublesome behaviour include a lack of education, poor family relationships, having family members or peers who have offended, and misuse of substances.

The following programmes aim to deal with risk factors, engage young people’s interests and increase their knowledge:

1.     Youth Inclusion Programme (YIP)

Youth Inclusion Programmes (YIPs), established in 2000, are tailor-made programmes for 8 to 17 year olds who are identified as being at high risk of involvement in offending or anti- social behaviour. YIPs are also open to other young people in the local area.

The programme operates in 110 of the most deprived/high crime estates in England and Wales. YIPs aim to reduce youth crime and anti-social behaviour in neighbourhoods where they work. Young people on the YIP are identified through a number of different agencies including Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), police, social services, local education authorities or schools, and other local agencies.

An independent national evaluation of the first three years of YIPs found that: • arrest rates for the 50 young people considered to be most at risk of crime in each YIP had been reduced by 65%;

of those who had offended before joining the programme, 73% were arrested for fewer offences after engaging with a YIP;

of those who had not offended previously but who were at risk, 74% did not go on to be arrested after engaging with a YIP.

2.     Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs)

Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs) aim to prevent anti-social behaviour and offending by 8- to 13-year-olds who are considered to be at high risk of offending. They have been designed to help the YJB meet its target of putting in place, in each YOT in England and Wales, programmes that will identify and reduce the likelihood of young people committing offences.

Panels are made up of a number of representatives of different agencies (e.g. police, schools, health and social services). The main emphasis of a panel’s work is to ensure that

children and their families, at the earliest possible opportunity, can access mainstream public services.

3.     Parenting

Parenting programmes provide parents with an opportunity to improve their skills in dealing with the behaviour that puts their child at risk of offending. They provide parents/carers with one-to-one advice as well as practical support in handling the behaviour of their child, setting appropriate boundaries and improving communication.

Poor parenting is seen as one of the major risk factors associated with young people at risk of offending. Parents with a child who has become involved with the youth justice system may be offered the opportunity to voluntarily attend a parenting programme by the local YOT, if they consider that it would be useful. However, if voluntary participation cannot be achieved, a Parenting Order can be sought by the YOT which compels the parents/carers of a child at risk to attend.

4.     Safer School Partnerships

The Safer School Partnerships (SSP) programme enables local agencies to address significant behavioural and crime-related issues in and around a school. A result of the YJB’s proposal to develop a new policing model for schools, the SSP programme was launched as a pilot in September 2002, and brought into mainstream policy in March 2006. All schools involved in the Safer School Partnerships initiative have a police officer based in their school. The school-based officer works with school staff and other local agencies to:

• reduce victimization, criminality and anti-social behaviour within the school and its community
  • work with schools on whole-school approaches to behaviour and discipline

• identify and work with children and young people at risk of becoming victims or offenders

• ensure the full-time education of young offenders (a proven preventative factor in keeping young people away from crime)
  • support vulnerable children and young people through periods of transition, such as the move from primary to secondary school

• create a safer environment for children to learn in. Close working between police and schools is seen as crucial to keeping children in education, off the streets and away from a life of crime. This is a joint initiative between the Department for Children, Schools and Families, the YJB and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

5.     Mentoring

Mentoring pairs a volunteer with a young person at risk of offending. The volunteer’s role is to motivate and support the young person on the scheme through a sustained relationship, over an extended period of time. The relationship is built upon trust and a commitment to confidentiality and equality between the mentor and the young person. The relationship must be structured and have clearly identified objectives. These objectives should be to help the young person identify and achieve educational, vocational or social goals which address the factors in the young person’s life that put them at risk of offending.

The Court System

When a young person is charged with an offence, they will appear before the youth court. If the case cannot be dealt with immediately, the court will make a decision as to whether the young person will be bailed or remanded into custody. If a young person pleads not guilty, a date will be set for the trial when the magistrates will hear all the evidence and decide whether or not the young person is guilty.

If the decision is guilty, they will then decide on the most appropriate sentence. If the case is very serious, the youth court will send the case to the Crown Court for trial and/or sentence.

1.     The Youth Court

Adult magistrates’ courts can only undertake trials and sentence people for offences for which the maximum penalty is six months in prison. Magistrates’ courts deal mainly with cases involving people over the age of 18. They can deal with young people, but only if they are being tried with an adult.

The youth court is a section of the magistrates’ court and can be located in the same building. It deals with almost all cases involving young people under the age of 18. This section of the magistrates’ court is served by youth panel magistrates and district judges. They have the power to give Detention and Training Orders of up to 24 months, as well as a range of

sentences in the community. Youth courts are less formal than magistrates’ courts, are more open and engage more with the young person appearing in court and his or her family.

Youth courts are essentially private places and members of the public are not allowed in. The victim(s) of the crime, however, has/have the opportunity to attend the hearings of the court if they want to, but they must make a request to the court if they wish to do so. The needs and wishes of victims will always be considered by the court and, through the youth offending team (YOT), they often have the opportunity to have an input into the sentencing process.

2.     Non-Custodial Disposals

When young people first get into trouble, behave anti-socially or commit minor offences, they can usually be dealt with, by the police and local authority, outside of the court system, using a variety of orders and agreements. This is to stop young people getting sucked into the youth justice system too early, while still offering them the help and support they need to stop offending.

Pre-court measures

• Reprimand • Final Warning

Anti-social behaviour measures

• Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) • Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) • Individual Support Order (ISO) • Local Child Curfew

3.     Sentences in the Community

• Supervision Order • Community Rehabilitation Order • Community Punishment Order • Action Plan Order • Attendance Centre Order • Referral Order • Reparation Order • Fine • Conditional Discharge • Absolute Discharge

4.  Custodial Sentences

• The Detention and Training Order

Section 73 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (now section 100 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000), established a new custodial sentence, the Detention and Training Order (DTO) for young people aged under 18 years. The new sentence was devised to rationalize the sentencing arrangements which previously existed for those aged under 18 and to make custody more effective in preventing reoffending. The DTO replaced the

sentences of detention in a young offender institution (DYOI) for 15–17-year-olds, and the sentence of the secure training order (STO) for 12–14-year-olds.

The only DTO sentences available to the courts are ones of 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 18 and 24 months. Half of the sentence is served in custody and the other half under supervision in the community. Consecutive sentences are also available to the courts but only up to a maximum of 24 months (i.e. 12 months in custody). Young people sentenced to a DTO who reach the age of 18 will continue to serve the DTO; it cannot be converted into a term of DYOI. Section 37

(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act establishes that the principal aim of the youth justice system is “to prevent offending by children and young persons.”

Section 37 (2) imposes a duty on everyone working in the youth justice system to have regard to that aim. The DTO is designed to ensure that the most appropriate form of training is provided for each young offender to help prevent further offending. To enable this, the DTO can be served in a secure children’s home (SCH), in a Secure Training Centre (STC), in a YOI and in any other place that the Secretary of State determines.

For those serving eight months or more but under 18 months release from custody one month earlier or later than the mid-point of the total sentence is possible. For those serving 18 months and over, release from custody two months earlier or later than the mid-point of the total sentence is possible.

However, decisions to transfer early or late will be authorized only when clearly established criteria have been met. There is a presumption in favor of early release.

(ii)  Sentences for Serious Offences

Section 90 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (formerly Section 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933) provides that a person aged under 18 (at the time of the offence) convicted of murder shall be sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure.

Section 91 (formerly Sections 53(2) and 53(3) of the 1933 Act) provides that children and young people convicted of certain specified “serious” offences other than murder which in the case of an adult are punishable with imprisonment for 14 years or more, may, if no other methods of disposal are deemed suitable, be sentenced up to the adult maximum for the offence, which may be for life. Those sentenced under Section 90 or 91 are liable, under Section 92

(formerly part of Section 53(3) of the 1933 Act), to be “detained in such place and under such conditions as the Secretary of State may direct or arrange with any person.”

A Section 90/91 sentence is passed not only to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence but also to reflect the fact that special attention needs to be given to the offender’s rehabilitation. Such sentences vary considerably in their length and consequently in terms of how and where the offenders spend their time in custody. At one end of the scale is the young person who is sentenced to no more than a few months’ detention and who, because of his/her age or vulnerability, will spend the whole of the custodial period in secure accommodation in a SCH. At the other end of the scale are those who are convicted of murder or some other grave crime and who, after spending periods first in a SCH or STC and then in a Prison Service under 18 establishment, will eventually move, via a young adult (age 18-20) YOI, to the adult prison system to complete the custodial part of their sentence.

A determinate sentenced ‘section 91’ young person will in most cases receive automatic release on licence at the mid-point of their sentence. Home detention curfew will normally be available. The licence period in the community lasts until the sentence expiry date.

The procedures for the release of those young people sentenced to detention at her Majesty’s pleasure or detention for life are similar to those for adult Lifers and involve consideration by the Parole Board.

(iii)  Sentences for Public Protection and for Certain Violent or Sexual Offences

Section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides that young people convicted of a specified sexual or violent offence carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment or more and who are considered by the court to be dangerous will be eligible to receive a sentence of detention for public protection unless the court considers that:

• a Section 91 sentence of detention for life (see above) is justified; or

• an Extended Sentence under section 228 (see below) would be adequate in terms of public protection.

A section 226 sentence means that the young person must remain in custody until the custodial part (the tariff) set by the Court has been served, at which time the offender will become parole eligible. Release from custody is at such a time as the Parole Board feels that it

is safe for them to be released, i.e. when a full risk assessment indicates that they no longer pose a significant risk to the public. Home Detention Curfew is not available. Once released, the young person may remain on license indefinitely, but in contrast to life licensees, they can apply to have their licence reviewed at the 10 year point by the Parole Board and at yearly intervals thereafter. The licence will be terminated if the Parole Board considers it safe to do so on the grounds of public protection.

Section 228 of the 2003 Act provides that young people who have been convicted of specified sexual or violent offences (including if they have been convicted of an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years or more) and who are considered by the court to be dangerous, will be eligible to receive an Extended Sentence which extends the period on licence and excludes them from early release except on parole.

Governance, Commissioning and Delivery frameworks

A. Responsibility for the Youth Justice System

To ensure an integrated approach to Youth Justice in which justice and child welfare policies are in harmony and practitioners in both fields can work together effectively, the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) have been given a shared responsibility for youth justice policy and funding.

A Joint (DCSF/MoJ) Youth Justice Unit has been established with the dual aims of • contributing to the protection of the public by developing policy and law in relation to children who offend and are at risk of offending, to ensure implementation and delivery; and • contributing to the outcomes of Every Child Matters in terms of ensuring children and young people in contact with the criminal justice system achieve all five outcomes.

This last bullet point is a reference to the 2004 Children’s Act which underpins the “Every Child Matters: Change for Children” programme in England and a number of similar initiatives in Wales. All these programmes/initiatives lay particular emphasis on multi-agency working at local level to improve outcomes for children.

Section 10 of the 2004 Act (Section 25 for Wales) requires cooperation between local authorities and other specified bodies or agencies to improve the well-being of children in the authority’s area; and it defines “well-being” by the following five outcomes:

• physical and mental health and emotional well-being

• protection from harm and neglect

• education, training and recreation

• the contribution made by them (the children) to society

• social and economic well-being

The Commissioning Framework

1.     The Youth Justice Board (YJB)

The YJB is a non-departmental public body set up by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Section 41). Its purpose is to monitor the operation of the youth justice system and the provision of youth justice services; and to advise the Justice Secretary about how the principal aim of the youth justice system might most effectively be pursued, and on the content of any national standards he or she may set with respect to the provision of the entire secure juvenile estate.

The Joint Youth Justice Unit is the departmental sponsoring body for the YJB.

(i) Community Supervision

• Youth Offending Teams

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (section 39) requires local authorities with social services and education responsibilities to establish a Youth Offending Team or teams, in partnership with the police, probation service and health authorities. The YOTs, which have been in place in all areas of England and Wales since April 2000, must include social workers, police and probation officers and education and health staff, and may include staff from other agencies, including local custody providers, if this is considered appropriate.

Managers from other agencies may also be involved in local steering arrangements for the teams. The role of the YOTs is to work with young offenders and those at risk of offending in the community to turn them away from crime. The teams deliver or co-ordinate the delivery of a range of youth justice services, including bail support and the supervision of community sentences and of young people released from custody.

How these services are to be delivered and funded locally and the functions and funding of the youth offending teams have to be set out in an annual youth justice plan, drawn up by the local authority in consultation with other agencies, and which is submitted to the YJB and published. Local custody providers should be consulted in drawing up the plan. Inter-

departmental guidance on establishing YOTs was issued on 22 December 1998 and sent to Governors.

A key feature of the DTO is the importance attached to the continuity of work with each young person after transfer to the community. To ensure this, a supervising officer will be appointed by the YOT to each young person immediately after sentence and will establish and maintain contact with them throughout their time in custody, contributing to the sentence planning, review and preparation for release.

The supervising officer is the establishment’s main point of contact with the YOTs, these being the means by which effective inter-agency planning and co-operation will be organized and delivered locally.

Governors must keep the supervising officer informed of all the developments and the difficulties experienced by the young person in custody and put in place arrangements to facilitate quality contact between the establishment, the young person and supervising officer.

(b)  Commissioning of Secure Accommodation

From April 2000, under powers conferred by Section 41(5) of the Crime and Disorder Act (as amended by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Order 2000), the YJB became the commissioning and 85 RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78 purchasing body for all forms of secure accommodation for children and young people.

2.     Secure Accommodation

There are three types of establishments in which 10- to 17-year-olds sentenced or remanded to custody in England and Wales can be placed:

• secure children’s homes

• secure training centres (STCs)

• young offender institutions (YOIs).

(i)            Secure Children’s Homes

Secure children’s homes are run either by local authority social services departments or by private companies, overseen by the Department of Health and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Out of the three types of establishment, secure children’s homes have the highest ratio of staff to young people, and are generally smaller, ranging in size from six to

40 beds. They are usually used to accommodate younger children (those aged 12 to 14), young women up to the age of 16, and 15 to 16 year old young men who are assessed as needing extra care.

(ii)           Secure Training Centres

STCs are purpose-built centres for young people up to the age of 17. They are run by private operators under Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) contracts, which set out detailed operational requirements. There are four STCs in England: • Oakhill in Bedfordshire • Hassockfield in County Durham • Rainsbrook in Northamptonshire • Medway in Kent.

(iii)         Young Offender Institutions

YOIs are run either by the Prison Service or by the private sector, and can accommodate 15- to 21-year-olds. The YJB commissions and purchases the places for under-18s (i.e. 15- to 17-year-old boys and 17-year-old girls), who are held in units that are completely separate from those for 18- to 21-year-olds. About 81% of young people in custody are held in YOIs. YOIs have lower ratios of staff to young people than STCs and secure children’s homes, and accommodate larger numbers of young people. In 2006/7, the last year for published population data, there were an average of 2,914 young people under 18 in custody; of those 226 (7.7%) were in Secure Children’s Homes, 257 (8.9%) were in Secure Training Centres and 2,431 (83.4%) were in Young Offender Institutions. Of the total 2,704 were male and 211 females.