This month, Youth Minister Jake Richards announced that the power of Parenting Orders would be expanded in order to tackle youth offending. This includes the potential of custodial sentences or ‘docking benefits’ at the discretion of the judge. At face value, holding parents more accountable for their children’s behaviour may seem reasonable. However, the unintended consequences could extend far beyond parents who knowingly neglect their responsibilities. For vulnerable families, these measures risk worsening some of the conditions already associated with youth offending.
Many of the parents I knew were working multiple jobs simply to get by. It is easy to look at young people involved in crime and ask where their parents are.
Reading the proposal made me reflect on my own time in secondary school and alternative provision, particularly the peers I knew who became involved with youth justice services. What were their home lives like? What role did their parents actually play? And would a policy like this have changed their trajectory? I remember leaving school and hearing people discussing where they would spend the evening. ‘My mum’s at work and she’s got her night shift later, so we can go to mine’ was a common sentiment. Many of the parents I knew were working multiple jobs simply to get by. It is easy to look at young people involved in crime and ask where their parents are. It is much less common to ask why those parents may not be at home to sit with their children over an evening meal.
Many of these young people also had younger siblings. Looking after them was part of everyday life: walking them home from school, sorting out food and, in some cases, feeling considerable pressure to find money or gain status because they believed they were helping their family. Their younger siblings often had little understanding of what their older brothers or sisters were involved in. When somebody ended up in court, it could be a shock to the entire household.
This is what I fear the proposed policy overlooks. I do not doubt that some parents know exactly what is happening and have the capacity to intervene. But that does not describe every family whose child becomes involved in offending, who could still be subject to this penalty at the discretion of judges. Households who claim benefits do so because of material and financial need, and financially penalising these households does not affect only the parent subject to the order. Younger siblings may also experience greater material hardship.
A systematic review commissioned by the Youth Endowment Fund found that poverty is associated with an increased risk of youth crime and violence, with financial difficulties such as debt and food insecurity showing particularly strong associations. The evidence does not establish poverty as a simple direct cause of offending, but it should make us cautious about policies that deliberately reduce already limited household resources.
A policy intended to prevent youth offending should not risk reinforcing the circumstances that can make young people more vulnerable to it. Accountability has a role within youth justice. But if the aim is genuinely to change a young person’s trajectory, working collaboratively with families and understanding why they are struggling is more likely to build trust than pushing an already vulnerable household further into hardship.
…effective youth justice depends on cooperation, honesty and early intervention…
I understand why Jake Richards MP has described this as a ‘carrot-and-stick’ approach, but I am not convinced that this is how it would play out in practice. For families already experiencing financial pressure, the ‘stick’ could quickly become the dominant part of the policy. Threatening benefits or custody may undermine trust between families and youth justice services, making parents less willing to engage openly with professionals or ask for help when problems first emerge. If effective youth justice depends on cooperation, honesty and early intervention, then creating fear around engagement risks pushing families further away from the very services intended to support them. Before expanding these powers, the government should engage directly with the young people and families most likely to be affected, and ask whether this policy will build the cooperation youth justice depends on, or undermine it.
