Impact of Youth Offending on Public Services

This essay explores the factors contributing to youth offending and its impact on public services. It discusses the government's initiatives and policies in addressing youth crime and the risk factors that lead young people to turn to crime. The essay also examines different theories of youth offending and the negative effects it has on various public services.

Public
Services

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
P1 ...........................................................................................................................................1
P2 ...........................................................................................................................................2
M1 ..........................................................................................................................................3
P3............................................................................................................................................3
P4 ...........................................................................................................................................4
M2 ..........................................................................................................................................4
D1...........................................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
A public service is offered by the government to all members of a community
(Otsuki, 2016). It is related with the social activities that provided by the government
through jurisdiction, either directly or by financing provision of services. These services
are relating to different things like transport, health care or removal of waste in order to
provide advantages to all the people in certain society and community. The term of
public services is mainly connected with the social agreement where several services
will be provided to all, irrespective of income. This essay mainly based on the statement
of “England and Wales is experiencing a ‘school to prison line’ for its young people.” On
the basis of the statement define the factors that contribute in youth offending and show
impact on the public services. According to this factor government apply all the policies
and initiatives in youth offending. Along with, determine the risk factors that contribute
for the young people are turning to crime in contemporary society and it will impact on
the public services.
MAIN BODY
P1
In present time youth offending increase day by day and mostly in England and
Wales and Government recoded crime about 618000 recoded that impact on the social
development as well as public services. For this UK government set age limit for
criminal responsibility is set at 10. Young offenders aged 10 to 17 are categorised as a
juvenile offender. The age between of 18 to 21 they are classed as young offenders.
There are reviewing the evidence base that guides that influence to government to
develop governmental plan of action and steps in youth offending.
Pressure on the government to take action on youth crime: Due to increase
of the youth crime people put pressure on the UK government to take initiatives and
develop effective policies regarding to youth offending. Evidence base policy practice
can help to taking effective decision making and should inform the development of
public policy. For this government develop a youth offending team that connect with the
wide area of society of activity with young offenders (under 18) to adopt their intention.
1

YOTs examine to Youth who have been orderly by the assembly to answer conviction in
the community or in the safe holding (Giulietti, Tonin and Vlassopoulos, 2017).
Control youth offenders: As per the analysis it is getting that about around
11000 Youth cautions were given to children in England and Wales. To stop and control
the Youth offenders that impact on the society development required to apply
appropriate approaches and strategies. For this Government set Young offender
institutions (YOIs) where admit those youth who are taking steps regarding to criminal
activities. There are taking people between age of 15 to 21. It opened by the UK
government to provide the safety and security to local people and their children that
focus on the several kind of Youth offenders.
Due to provide develop society policy require to government take steps for Youth
justice by political influences but it is impacted on the economic structure in society. The
UK government think about the cut state and spending motivated reduction on
expensive custodial alternatives. So Government take steps to set up new policy
regarding to youth offending (Wolff and et.al, 2017).
P2
There are defined the range of theories of youth offending as per the key thinkers
such as:
Differential association theory: As per the Edwin Sutherland (1947), youth
engage with different types of criminal activities. The particular theory understand that to
understand the behaviour of criminal require to focus on their social activities and which
activities they most take interest with person. It defines that how individual learn that to
linked with the criminal behaviour with the help of position, mechanism and need
against the criminal act. Moreover Sutherland recognise the nine factors that used for
the person link with the criminal behaviour (Bolívar, 2017).
Labelling theory: According to Marcionis and Plummer (2005), defined about
the theory that social responses become reason of crime and deviance. This theory
mainly developed by the assumption that deviant behaviour solely depended on the
violations of norms within the society. Deviance is not seen as the act where person link
responses rather than individual give to that act.
2

Classical theory: As per the point of view of Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909),
invented the theory who believe that criminal behaviour was inherited. This theory
depended on the positivist biological understanding and declared that people were born
to commit crime. Criminals are identified through physical features – an understanding
of crime in which now broadly discredited.
These theories are defined that how to recognising the criminal through the
physical activities and how to people learn criminal behaviour.
M1
There is analysing that youth offending impact in negative manner on the public
services which is not good for the society. The range of public services categorised into
different departments such as electricity, education, health care, military, public
transportation and many others. Due to Young offending these services influencing
because youngster behave negative that impact on the other people and apply same.
As a result society become violent and child education effected (Belanche, Casaló and
Orús, 2016).
P3
After the analysis theories of different thinkers define the risk factors that
influence to youth to turning to crime in contemporary society.
Peer group pressure: When people work together at one place so sharing
problems with colleagues. This time Peers influence to conduct criminal activities that
impact on the society in direct manner.
Parental criminality: Many parents are belonged from the criminal activities and
youth learn from the parents about the criminal activities. Due to parent support they
always torturing to weak people and enjoy these things (Fine and et.al, 2016).
Low family income: Due to low income youth attract for the expensive things and
wants to money early so for this they are selecting short way of steal. It shows bad
impact on the society development.
Social media: Most of young people use social media where see different types
of videos of violence. They are learning from the social media and apply on real life due
to create any reason. It is main risk factor that impact on the mind stability of the young
people.
3

Disaffected from school: In the teenager age youth dissatisfied with the school
activities and learn criminal activities with class mate. When teacher scold them so they
are behaving different and start to d criminal activities (Ouyang and et.al, 2017).
P4
There are defining different types of factors that known as proactive factors
towards of youth offending. As per the research recognised the protective factor that
can utilise to deduct the link of young person for criminal activities. Where they are
strong so these factors effectively decrease the continue increasing criminal behaviour
to arranging exposure and offsetting the influence of different risks. There are identified
the protective factors to deduct risk of youth offending such as:
Good cognitive performance: There is required to present good cognitive
performance to deduct the risk factors of youth offending.
Social and problem solving skills: Parents must taught to child how do they
increase their social and problem solving skills that help in critical situation and take
right decision on right time. For this require to parents always supports to child at
different age level (Wiewiora, Keast and Brown, 2016).
Engagement with community activities: There are required to develop community
and increase relation of child with the communities where they are learning right things
and understand how to tackle problems in difficult period of time.
Supportive, interested parents or careers: To carry out from the criminal activities
of their child require to parent focus on the child. They provide support and provide
morale support regarding top their careers and other things relations.
M2
There are determining the different factors that on the basis suggested that
different risk factor through different variables such as age: the younger the juvenile at
first contact and first court appearances. Family status: not living with both natural
parents, placement in out of home care, one or both parents decreased. School
attendance: has been suspended or expelled, not attending school at time offence
committed. So these factors the helping to changes in the nature of youth. According to
that take appropriate steps that helps to fulfil the requirement and support their morale
regarding to different things (Shoup, Yuan and Jiang, 2017).
4

D1
There is analysing different factors that impact on the public services (Bracci,
Fugini and Sicilia, 2016). There are defining percentages how to impact these factors on
the public services such as:
These Factors are impact on the transportation, health care and many other
public services so it is required to control of youth offending.
CONCLUSION
As per the above report it has been concluded that the government provided
different types of public services to people that impact by different things such as youth
offending. In present time mostly youth apply criminal activities to sort the problems and
many factors are impacting on the life style that influence to apply violence. These
things are directly impact on the social development and identify the youth offending
understand the different theories that given by the key thinkers. They are believing that
physical activities helps to identify the criminal and know the reason how to become
criminal. To control youth offending government develop youth offending team and
institution where provide training to people how to handle these types of people and
educate for right way.
5

REFERENCES
Books and Journal
Otsuki, K., 2016. Infrastructure in informal settlements: co-production of public services
for inclusive governance. Local Environment. 21(12). pp.1557-1572.
Giulietti, C., Tonin, M. and Vlassopoulos, M., 2017. Racial discrimination in local public
Services: A field experiment in the United States. Journal of the European
Economic Association. 17(1). pp.165-204.
Bolívar, M. P. R., 2017. Governance models for the delivery of public services through
the Web 2.0 technologies: A political view in large Spanish
municipalities. Social science computer review. 35(2). pp.203-225.
Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V. and Orús, C., 2016. City attachment and use of urban
services: Benefits for smart cities. Cities. 50. pp.75-81.
Ouyang, W. and et.al, 2017. Spatial deprivation of urban public services in migrant
enclaves under the context of a rapidly urbanizing China: An evaluation based
on suburban Shanghai. Cities. 60. pp.436-445.
Wiewiora, A., Keast, R. and Brown, K., 2016. Opportunities and challenges in engaging
citizens in the co-production of infrastructure-based public services in
Australia. Public Management Review. 18(4). pp.483-507.
Shoup, D., Yuan, Q. and Jiang, X., 2017. Charging for parking to finance public
services. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 37(2). pp.136-149.
Bracci, E., Fugini, M. and Sicilia, M., 2016. Co-production of public services: meaning
and motivations. In Co-production in the Public Sector (pp. 1-11). Springer,
Cham.
Fine, A. and et.al, 2016. Self-control assessments and implications for predicting
adolescent offending. Journal of youth and adolescence. 45(4). pp.701-712.
Wolff, K. T. and et.al, 2017. The mobility of youth in the justice system: Implications for
recidivism. Journal of youth and adolescence. 46(7). pp.1371-1393.
6