Wrong to wield the big stick

Too much carrot, not enough stick?

The rewards to be secured from the Scottish Executive's Intensive Support and Monitoring (ISM) orders are improved behaviour among serious young offenders and, consequently, a better quality of life in communities blighted by them.
When ISM orders were introduced in April, it was the electronic tagging for the under-16s element that made headlines. But tagging is only a part of it – a very small part, as things have turned out, much to the frustration of Cathy Jamieson, the justice minister.
Young offenders also receive at least 15 hours of advice and help a week from experts in childcare issues and have access to a 24-hour helpline. The care and support element of the orders have proved most effective.
To date, this has benefited some 90 troubled youngsters who, before an order was applied, were perhaps offending once a day. Re-offending rates have been reduced by some 50%. That should be a cause for cautious optimism.

However, Ms Jamieson is unhappy that the stick element of the orders – tagging – is not being used by local authorities eligible to take part in the scheme to test the initiative. Only three councils have used ISM orders. Of the some 90 persistent offenders subject to intensive support, only four have been tagged.
Of these four, two have repeatedly breached the orders and one has gone into secure accommodation – the last resort that the orders are intended to avoid.
Why so few tags? The reason is simple: experts in the field, including social workers and children's charities, believe that tagging is not the solution for the under-16 age group.
They believe it is, at best, a distraction; at worst, a counter-productive punitive measure that pins a badge of shame, a visible stigma, on already troubled lives. The experts believe the focus should be on intervention and intensive support, not tagging or anti-social behaviour orders (none of which has been imposed on young people or children in Scotland). The reduction in re-offending rates suggests their approach is right.
Yet Ms Jamieson implies that the failure to use tags means the entire strategy is not working. That does not seem to be borne out by the evidence. Indeed, if anything is failing, it is tagging (apparently unsuccessful in three of the four cases). Ms Jamieson is right to say we owe it to hard-pressed communities and young offenders themselves to tackle anti-social behaviour.

But she is wrong to threaten a withdrawal of future funding for ISM orders (£7m to 2006) unless there is a greater use of tagging. If intensive intervention and support are shown to work over time, they should be funded on their own merits. Applying the big stick might make for favourable headlines.
If, as expert judgment suggests, it is not the answer, it should not be allowed to get in the way of the real work to be done – and developed.

Editorial
11 August 2005

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/44740.html

home / Previous viewpoint