Girls in the Criminal Justice System

Context
In England and Wales, girls comprise around 20% of the caseload of youth offending services. We know from previous inspections that girls tend to commit less serious offences than boys, and their offending is often a response to emotional well-being and issues concerning relationships with parents, partners and friends. Girls tend to have high levels of welfare needs and are vulnerable to the actions of others. Because of their relatively low number the needs of girls can sometimes be overlooked within a juvenile criminal justice system primarily designed to deal with offending by boys. There has also been significant concern recently about the prevalence of child sexual exploitation in a number of areas where vulnerable girls have been victims.

The inspection
This inspection was agreed by the Criminal Justice Chief Inspectors’ Group and formed part of the work stream identified in the Joint Inspection Business Plan 2012-2014. The objective of the inspection was to assess the effectiveness of youth offending services, in conjunction with other organisations, in reducing the likelihood of girls offending and in reducing the risk of harm girls present to others and making them less vulnerable (with particular reference to alcohol misuse).

We visited six Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) to assess the quality of work in a sample of 48 cases. We also interviewed key managers and operational staff in the YOTs and other agencies. We also interviewed 20 girls who were serving sentences in custody and custody staff.

Overall findings
The best work in YOTs was characterised by an approach to assessment and intervention that recognised that girls often had different needs to boys. The assessment and management of the risk of harm posed by girls to others was generally sound and there were some promising examples of interventions that were designed for girls.

Unfortunately, this approach was not consistently applied. In some cases, assessments and interventions did not take into account gender differences. Many of the girls were vulnerable and presented challenges to those who worked with them. Efforts were made to reduce this vulnerability, but in too many cases there was a preoccupation with process rather than effective action.

Child sexual exploitation presented a serious risk to girls in all the areas we visited. We saw some effective preventative work to help girls understand the risk in their lives and increase their resilience. However, the responses to girls who were victims of sexual exploitation were highly variable in quality and effectiveness and the links between their offending behaviour and the serious risk of harm that they faced were not always considered properly. Although all areas had multi-agency procedures to identify girls at risk of sexual exploitation, these often concentrated more on information sharing rather than targeting work to reduce risks to them.

Girls in custody spoke positively about staff and their key workers. These relationships had helped them to develop good insight into what they needed to do in order to resettle successfully on release. However, work to address offending behaviour in custody was often not recognised as such by girls, and YOT workers could do more to maintain or build relationships with girls in custody in preparation for their release.

More work needed to be done in monitoring performance data about girls by YOT managers in order to target interventions more effectively and improve outcomes.