Representations of youth are often polarised: stressing potentiality or deficiency. This ambivalence is reflected in New Labour youth policy for England, where the insistence that 'Every Child Matters' (HM Treasury 2003) exists alongside an expanded, often punitive, youth justice system in England and Wales (Muncie and Goldson 2006). Within this system, 'early intervention' and 'prevention' services attempt to combine 'crime reduction' and 'welfare-orientated' objectives. Targeted sports programmes or 'sportsbased interventions' also claim to tackle 'drug use, crime and anti-social behaviour' and promote 'social inclusion' (Crime Concern 2006: 15, Football Foundation 2006). Sport has long been associated with youth crime reduction (RusseU and Rigby 1908; Wolfenden 1960; Rigg 1986), but research has historically failed to provide robust evidence to support such claims (Utting 1996; Coalter et al. 2000). Some now claim an 'evidence base' is developing (Nichols 2007), or believe programmes can bring wider social poKcy benefits (Collins et al. 1999; Crabbe et al. 2006a).

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 launched a new joined up youth justice system for England and Wales, which epitomised the policy themes and aspirations of a New Labour government. This thesis examines the YOT model to assess how successfully the policy intentions of the 1998 Act have been enacted. YOTs were intended as an exemplar of joined up team practice, integrating professional skills and knowledge towards a common service user focused goal, and promoting interdependency through partnership. New Labour's policy themes often conflict however and implementation has not been easy. The problem of youth offending and solutions to it are capable of being interpreted in many different ways by power holders. The YOT model appears to have been built upon flawed assumptions about what teams are, and what they are capable of achieving in the absence of fundamental changes to how the public sector is organised and managed. YOTs do not have the authority to sustain the high level of interdependency required of them and they lack many of the characteristics of effective teams. There is uncertainty about what interprofessional practice is and how it can be facilitated. Youth justice professionals have demonstrated that dynamic interprofessional team practice is possible, and has the potential to deliver joined up youth offending services. It will be argued however that the changes introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 lacked a clear philosophical foundation. The weaknesses of the YOT model, and the muddled language of the joined up imperative, demonstrate the difficulty of attempting to launch multiple changes in a conceptual vacuum. The new youth justice system may disadvantage growing numbers of children and young people, while failing to achieve its main aim of reducing youth crime. The continued support of youth justice practitioners is not guaranteed.

'Community' has long proved an integral element in commonsense thinking about a range of social problems and experiences, and with respect to crime the general conclusion is that more community will mean less crime. This study comprises a critical exploration of the resonance of community to New Labour's youth justice policy and to the lives of young offenders. The concept of community is of particular interest, as since its election in 1997 New Labour has been committed to forge a new political ideology of the 'Third Way', wherein communitarian ideas have proved central to the government's ambitions to revive and emphasise individual's responsibilities and obligations to civil society. Thus evident in the array of civil and criminal orders, which constitute the youth justice system in England and Wales, are constructions of community as both a 'moral resource' and as a 4moral claimant'. The former assumes that communities have inherent capacities in preventing and controlling youth crime, while the latter prioritises the community's right to demand the punishment and exclusion of those young people who fail to live up to their communal responsibilities. Given that communitarian responses are but the latest manifestation of the constant search for solutions t o youth crime, consideration is initially accorded to the historical shifts and continuities in both youth justice and community safety policy and practices. It is argued that a movement towards increasingly punitive, exclusionary and defensive responses to crime and young offenders has prevailed in recent years, and it is within this context that New Labour's prioritisation of communitarian thought has occurred. Attention then turns to the specificities of the government's commitment to communitarianism,within youth justice. Not only do New Labour emphasise young people's responsibilities to the community - rather than the community's, or indeed, the state's responsibilities to the young person- but it has also demonstrated its willingness to define. legislate and sanction with respect to those responsibilities it considers essential to the membership rights of the 'law-abiding' community. As such it is contended that the government's vision of community is essentially narrow, defensive and divisive. The analysis then draws upon semi-structured qualitative interviews with a sample of young offenders and Youth Offending Team practitioners to explore the resonance of community to the lives of young offenders and to their experiences of youth justice supervision. It is argued that community is a salient feature of the lives of young offenders which often provides for inclusionary experiences. However, the government's faith in the community to act as a 'moral resource' in preventing and controlling crime does not adequately account for the complex, transitory and ambiguous nature of young offenders' experiences of communal life. Furthermore, the punitive repercussions of the government's commitment to honouring the community's role as a 'moral claimant' serve to undermine the practitioner's ability to exploit the resources the community may have to offer to with regard to encouraging and motivating young people to desist from offending. Additionally, the emphasis on intolerance is likely to promote the community's disapproval and hostility towards young offenders. It is concluded that New Labour's commitment to communitarianism, and its particular envisaging of community, conjures a powerful exclusionary potential which is unlikely to engender positive outcomes for either the young offender or the 'law abiding' community.

In recent years the government has introduced youth justice policy which claims to draw on the philosophy of restorative justice as an alternative to punitive sanctions. Referral orders were implemented nationally in 2002 and purportedly represent a significant policy commitment to restorative justice. Rather than incarcerating offenders or deterring them through punishment, referral orders aim to encourage them to understand the consequences of their behaviour, make amends and re-join the law abiding community. This is purportedly achieved through a youth offender panel (panel meeting) run by lay members of the local community along with a member of staff from the youth offending team (YOT). The panel meeting aims to provide a forum away from formal court proceedings to discuss the offence and to agree and construct a contract that the offender must follow. Referral orders therefore present a useful arena in which to explore young offenders’ experiences of restorative justice and to compare this with their experience of the more formal court process. Research has revealed that fair procedures are important in securing people’s compliance with the law and that offenders view restorative processes as fairer than court. However, the majority of research in this area has been done with adults and there is comparatively little research that focuses on young offenders’ perceptions of criminal justice processes. For children, procedural safeguards largely relate to the manner in which adults interact with them. My research therefore explores young people’s experiences with a range of authority figures including: teachers, police officers, magistrates, lay panel members and staff at the YOT. In doing this I aim to consider both how young people perceive the restorative elements of referral orders and more broadly, the way in which they form judgements of different criminal justice processes and sources of authority.

Youth justice in England and Wales is a highly politicised area of government policy and youth justice provision has always been a highly contested issue. The discourse of diversion stems from debates about the purpose and effectiveness of various types of penal regimes, and particularly their effect on children and young people in trouble with the law. The process of diversion aims to remove children and young people from the formal sanctions of the criminal justice system or minimize their penetration into it, and failing that it aims to avoid incarceration. Over the years diversion has taken many forms and the extent to which children have been diverted has varied. This thesis explores the various types of diversionary practice and how they have changed over time. It explores the political, administrative and professional conditions under which diversion has been a priority and those under which it has been effective. Bernard (1992) has argued that there is a ‘cycle of youth justice’ in which responses to youth crime move from the harsh to the more lenient before swinging back again. The thesis suggests that there is a ‘spiral’ of youth justice in which different paradigms are sometimes entangled together leading to the often contradictory and complex realities of youth justice and diversion without necessarily returning to the place of origin. It concludes that, given the current fiscal climate, there is a distinct likelihood that diversion policies will gain ascendancy. However, any developments will be fragile and susceptible to unintended consequences if the ‘real’ outcomes for children and young people are not part of the motivation for reform.