Supporting the youngest children in the youth justice system: what works to reduce offending and improve outcomes?

This report was commissioned by the Local Government Association and produced by Dr Patricia J. Lucas and Dr Jo Staines, independent social researchers. The recommendations within the report are those of the authors, for the consideration of all those engaged in supporting younger children in the youth justice system.

Our thanks to colleagues in the Youth Justice Board for assistance with evidence gathering and contact with Youth Offending Services across the country. Our thanks to the individuals who responded to our call for evidence, and to those who provided further assistance and information to us (Alyce Simpson, Andrea Underhill, Andrew Griffiths, Annette Irvine, Cathy James, Christa Matthews, Claire Bowers, Emily Gray, Frederick VanHeerden, Jethro Bogdanov, Julie Cummins, Kim Stephenson, Liza Kinnane, Lloyd McDonald, Louise Franklin, Lucy Frampton, Lyndon Lewis, Lyndon Lewis, Marie McLaughlin, Mark Phillips, Mike Rees, Natasha Mcdonald, Nicola Suttenwood, Rachel Roberts, Sally Chugg, Sarah Dubberley, Sarah Forrest, Sheila Whitehead, Simone Fox, Steph Webber, Tanya Gillett, Vivian Blake, Williams, Claire). Thanks to Lee Clay for assistance with literature screening, and to Flora Wilkie for support and guidance.

Given there is debate about whether harmful acts by children can or should be considered crimes, it follows that language for harms caused by children is itself controversial. Offences committed by children fall along a continuum from relatively minor harms to very serious criminal behaviours. We recognise that the cumulative impact of repeated harms can be distressing for victims, but we try to avoid the language of crimes in this report. We distinguish between those more minor incidents and more serious offences by referring to the former as ‘harms’, particularly when perpetrated by a child under the age of criminal responsibility and using ‘offences’ for those incidents that are formally recognised and/or prosecuted as crimes (including where out of court actions are used to avoid a conviction).

When considering the international research literature, questions of appropriate language are compounded by cultural and contextual differences. For example, what might be described within the English education system as emotional and behaviour difficulties, may be described in a clinical context as Conduct Disorder (CD). What may be described in North American literature as delinquency, might be described in the UK as offending behaviour. When reporting findings from previous research in this review, we preserve the language, and therefore the meanings, used by the original authors.

Unless specified, throughout the report, we use the term ‘younger children’ to refer to those aged 8 – 13 years; where research or approaches relate to those aged under 8, we use ‘very young children’, and ‘older children’ to refer to those aged 14 years or over.

You will find any relevant references within the text followed by a number in brackets. You can find the full source in the references section.

At 10 years old, the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is one of the youngest in the world. There is a strong argument for increasing the MACR to 14 years. Research suggests 10 years is developmentally inappropriate. It also contravenes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and is harmful; early contact with the criminal justice system (CJS) increases the likelihood of future crimes. Few children aged under 14 years commit crimes, and their offences are largely minor.

This report summarises findings from a structured review of the evidence for alternatives to CJS responses, which was undertaken to establish what works to reduce offending and improve outcomes for children aged 8-13 years in contact with the criminal justice system.

There is a paucity of research specific to younger children in contact with the criminal justice system. Few intervention programmes were found in either the international research literature or in UK practice that addressed the particular needs of the 8-13 year old age group.

Evidence from approaches used with a wider range of children does suggest a number of effective approaches:

• There is strong evidence that family systems approaches (e.g. family therapy and Multi Systemic Therapy) are effective at reducing disruptive behaviour, antisocial behaviours, Conduct Disorder and substance use for all ages of children and some evidence they are more effective in younger children. These approaches are being used in practice in the UK.
• Behavioural approaches (e.g. behavioural contracts) have been shown to be effective for reducing persistent offending behaviour for all ages of children.
• Police-led diversion schemes, using cautions, restorative actions and referrals to other services to avoid arrest, have been shown to reduce re-offending rates by about 20 per cent relative to usual practice. However, we also know that contact with the criminal justice system generally increases re-offending rates. Therefore, care should be taken when using police-led approaches not to increase contact with offending communities or negative contacts with the police.
• While there is a strong evidence base to suggest restorative justice approaches are effective at both reducing repeat offending and improving victim satisfaction rates in older children, there is a lack of evidence about effectiveness when used with children under the age of 14 years. Restorative justice may be less appropriate at earlier developmental stages.

In current UK practice, Youth Offending Services (YOS) and Youth Offending Teams (YOT) describe working in individualised ways taking each child’s context into consideration. However, beyond this, very few programmes were found that address the specific needs of this age group. Where innovative practice exists, we do not yet have evidence from robust evaluations to support clear recommendations.

Victims of crimes do not report greater satisfaction when children receive criminal sentences. Victims feel most supported when their voices are heard and the harm to them is taken seriously, regardless of the outcome for the offender.

Based on the available evidence, the authors of this report therefore recommend:

• Raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 and transferring responsibility for children aged 10-13 years who cause harm from youth justice to children’s social care.
• Expand access to systemic therapies, cognitive or behavioural therapies for younger children whose behaviour causes harm.
• Build a system that recognises and responds to the impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences and Trauma on child behaviour. This is likely to mean providing training for professionals across sectors (including the police). It may also mean introducing earlier assessments to identify children likely to need more intensive support.
• Avoid using cautions, court orders, or convictions as necessary qualifiers for intervention (for example from mental health teams). It is not appropriate for a criminal justice response to be required before young children receive the support they need. Needs should be assessed, and high-quality intervention considered at the earliest signs of aggressive, antisocial or disruptive behaviour.
• Where used, police-led diversion should occur pre-arrest, to avoid unnecessary criminalisation. Diversion should be embedded within a strategy which seeks to reduce punitive contacts with the police, and supports the police to link children to other supporting services (e.g. referrals to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) or local youth activities).
• Take a youth-led approach to designing or selecting activities and interventions. Evidence from practice suggests this will increase uptake and avoid wasting resources on unpopular programmes.
• Neither area-based curfews, nor any scheme which brings younger children into contact with older children who are more entrenched in their offending should be used. Neither are supported by the evidence and are unlikely to be a good use of resources.
• Develop a culture of cooperation and support between linked YOS. In case studies, participants reported this facilitated programme success regardless of the approach taken. Good relationships between services improved the experiences of organisations, professionals, families and children.

There are also gaps in our knowledge that need to be filled. We recommend:

• Recording and monitoring non-criminal justice or diversionary actions, these should be recorded anonymously and reported at aggregate level to avoid appearing on individual children’s records. This would enable monitoring and evaluation of the use of tools such as youth justice orders, injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance and out of court disposals.
• Consider the differential impact of crime reduction interventions according to child age. This is needed both when reporting on the impact of commissioned activities and when commissioning research.
• Develop and test interventions targeting children aged 8-13 years engaged in offending behaviour.
• Commission research into models of restorative justice or mediation appropriate for younger children, including when victims and offenders are in close relationships.

2.1 The age of criminal responsibility in children in the UK

The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland has not changed in almost 60 years, and at 10 years is one of the youngest in the world. In Scotland, the age was recently increased to 12 years with a plan to rise to 14 years, and the Government of Wales has indicated their support for the same.

Neuro-psychological evidence suggests that most children at age 10 will not yet have the developmental maturity and foresight for criminal responsibility to be appropriate.

The current MACR is in contravention of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child. It also results in inconsistencies within UK law, where children of the same age are understood very differently in different legal contexts.

Evidence does not suggest that contact with the criminal justice system (CJS) is an effective way to reduce crime. Instead, the CJS seems to be criminogenic; exposure to criminalised contexts increases the risk of reoffending.

In the 1990s and 2000s changes to law and practice drew increasing numbers of children into contact with the Youth Justice System (YJS). Since 2008 a positive youth justice approach has successfully been used, and reductions in children entering the YJS have been seen in England and Wales.

2.2 Offences committed by younger children

Fewer than 10 per cent of children within the Youth or Criminal Justice system are aged under 14 [14]. These youth crime statistics capture cautions and sentences providing a record of police actions, so may not accurately represent child behaviour.

The full extent of the involvement of younger children in the youth justice system is difficult to assess. The annual YJB statistics provide snapshot data on younger children’s involvement in offending behaviour where it has resulted in a caution or a sentence in England and Wales. Children under 10 are excluded from this dataset exactly because they cannot receive a criminal outcome. In the year ending March 2020*, about 10 per cent of children (aged 10-17) who received a caution or sentence were aged below 14 (Table 1). The total number of 10-13 year olds in this group was 2,439, which is about 1 in every 1,200 children in this age group at the time [22]. Reflecting patterns across the YJS, the majority of these children were boys, and children from Black or mixed ethnic backgrounds were disproportionately represented (Table 2). These figures certainly underestimate the number of contacts between children and the YJS, as they record policing actions rather than child offending itself. The many changes in legislation and sentencing guidance, the impact of early intervention and prevention programmes, and different data recording practices across police forces and Youth Offending Teams (YOT) result in reporting differences.

*Although updated data from 2021 is available, this report focuses on data from 2020, published in 2021; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic means that data from the year 2020-2021 is likely provide an atypical account of children’s involvement in the youth justice system

This review draws on two sources of information: evidence from Systematic Reviews of international research evidence, and evidence from UK practice.

3.1 Evidence from Systematic Reviews

3.1.1 Introduction

Some of what we know comes from research with older children. A wealth of research with older children suggests that exposure to prison facilities (scared straight), processing through the juvenile justice system and custodial sentences all increase the likelihood of future offending [35, 36]. Given these more punitive approaches have been shown to be harmful in older children, they are likely to be harmful to younger children too, and we do not recommend them.

Similarly, whole-system approaches (for example, media campaigns or improvements to the built environment) do not target younger children in particular. However, systematic reviews of this evidence conclude that there is not enough evidence to judge whether or not these approaches are effective [37, 38].

We located 15 reviews published between 2010 and 2021 which examined programmes and interventions for children at high risk of involvement in the CJS and allowed us to consider outcomes for children aged 8-13 years specifically. Few reviews compared outcomes between age groups of children.

We located 15 reviews published between 2010 and 2021 which examined programmes and interventions for children at high risk of involvement in the CJS and allowed us to consider outcomes for children aged 8-13 years specifically. These reviews considered youth offending, criminal recidivism, aggressions, Conduct Disorder (CD), delinquency (broadly defined), behaviour problems, school exclusion and child mental health outcomes. These reviews are summarised in Table 5. Most reviewed psychosocial approaches including cognitive and behavioural programmes, systemic family therapy, treatment foster care and mentoring and it is reasonable to suppose there is considerable overlap between these reviews. The effectiveness of police-led diversion, curfews, drug treatment courts, restorative justice and pharmacological treatments were also reviewed. The reviews overlap in included studies, often include a mix of approaches, and child outcomes. The Appendix provides additional methodological details about included studies (available on request).

Across the literature we found that most reviews include a wide range of child participants, and that very few compare outcomes between age groups. In most of the reviews included here, it was possible to identify the ages included in each contributing study so that child age could be discussed even where review authors themselves did not comment on this.

The evidence presented does not separate out what works to improve outcomes for younger children who are accused of the most serious crimes. This is probably due to the very small number of children under 14 to whom this applies. High quality research-based evidence relies on rigorous evaluation with large numbers of cases, which is not possible for rare events and, fortunately, the number of serious harms caused by younger children is extremely small. We also found no review of practice with those children convicted of the most serious crimes. While caution should be used extrapolating from rare events, it would be helpful to collect and report more data about both victims and child offender outcomes in the case of the most serious offences.

3.1.2 Psycho-social approaches

Psycho-social approaches address the relationship between social factors (e.g. parenting, relationships, social functioning and social context) and a child’s individual thoughts and behaviours.

Evidence from multiple systematic reviews shows that family systems approaches (such as family therapy and Multi Systemic Therapy) are likely to be very effective at reducing disruptive behaviour, antisocial behaviours, Conduct Disorders (CDs) and substance use. There is some evidence that they will be more effective in younger children [46-49].

Behavioural approaches (e.g. behavioural modelling, behavioural contracts) have been shown to be effective for reducing persistent offending behaviour for all ages of children where this has been tested. Programmes carried out in court settings were less effective than community programmes [51].

De Vries and colleagues reviewed a wide range of approaches to try to identify the “effective ingredients” of programmes to reduce persistent offending behaviour [51]. Their review included a number of different psychosocial and behavioural interventions, treatment foster care, mentoring and restorative justice. They suggest that behavioural modelling, parent skills training and behavioural contracting resulted in larger reductions in re-offending than other approaches although the impact was still modest. They also found that these programmes appear to be equally effective in younger age groups. However, programmes carried out in court settings were less effective than those in community or home settings. 

One systematic review of online parenting programmes for parents of children with diagnosed behaviour problems found modest benefits, but most of the studies reviewed were with children younger than 8 years old [52].

There is an established and large evidence base for parenting programmes as a preventive programme when used with parents of very young children with behavioural difficulties [49, 53]. Few programmes are specific to the age group of interest here. One systematic review did include studies with this age group, using online parenting programmes for children and adolescents with diagnosed behaviour problems [52]. Authors conclude that online parenting interventions were effective in reducing diagnosed behaviour problems. However, the impact was modest and most of the evidence comes from studies including only younger children.

A systemic review of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) reports a large reduction in symptoms related to Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder [54]. However, the studies included in this review were less rigorous than in other reviews so the evidence is less convincing.

In a review of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) for CD and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) symptoms, Riise and colleagues report a large reduction in symptoms of both ADHD and CD/ODD [54]. At post treatment, remission rates were 38 per cent for ADHD and 48 per cent for CD/ODD. Authors also conclude that more severe symptoms at pre-treatment were associated with a larger effect size. This review is important because many included studies had a range or mean age within the age group of interest, so the evidence for the 8-13 year old group is comprehensive. However, the study types included in this review are broad, and where there is no comparison group and outcomes are teacher or parent reported there is a strong chance of responder bias in these studies so the evidence is less convincing.

Mentoring may have positive impacts on aggression, drug use, delinquency and academic functioning. However, the authors of the systematic review also note that mentoring models vary widely between studies, and so does effectiveness [55]. So while there is evidence mentoring may be helpful in this age group, it is not clear which form of mentoring may be helpful.

Tolan and colleagues [55] examined the evidence for mentoring to reduce delinquency (for example number of chargeable offenses) or aggression, drug use and academic functioning. Around half of the included studies studied mentoring in the 8-13 year old age group. Authors conclude that mentoring has a modest, positive impact on these outcomes. While authors do not compare effectiveness by age of participating children, the studies which include children aged 8-13 years old also tend towards positive results although not all do so. Although this is a thorough and well conducted review, the studies themselves vary considerably in their approach to mentoring and in their research methods. In particular, included studies seldom described the mentoring programme in detail. Considering the large variations in study outcome, this means it is not possible to know which form of mentoring is likely to be effective.

A range of school-based interventions (academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, and skills training for teachers) were shown to be effective in reducing school exclusions in the short term, but not in reducing antisocial behaviour [56]. The impact on exclusion rates was modest and not sustained.

Valdebenito examined school-based intervention to reduce exclusions from mainstream schools [56]. Exclusion from school is a risk factor for later criminal involvement, so it is an important outcome to consider. Nearly half of the participants in studies they include were middle-school children, so findings are robust for the age group of interest here. They found that enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, and skills training for teachers all reduced rates of exclusion but not antisocial behaviour. The reduction in exclusion rates was not sustained, and was modest in size with some evidence of greater impact on in-school rather than out-of-school exclusions [56].

3.1.3 Criminal Justice Approaches

Police-led diversions schemes, using cautions, restorative actions, and referrals to other services to avoid arrest, have been shown to reduce re-offending rates by about 20 per cent relative to usual practice [57].

Wilson and colleagues [57] reviewed police-led diversion approaches. Police-led diversion in these studies includes issuing cautions in the place of arrests, often accompanied by referrals to other services and/or police-led restorative actions. This approach was tested in 19 evaluations, only three of which certainly excluded children under the age of 14 years. In some studies more serious crimes were not included in the trial, but progressed to arrest as usual. Police-led diversion is generally positive for low-risk young people – with lower re-offending rate than those who experience ‘traditional’ processing [57]. On average across the studies, the re-offending rate amongst young people who received a caution was about 20 per cent lower than in the comparison arm (that is, about 8 re-arrests in the diversion group for every 10 re-arrests in the comparison group). The authors do not differentiate outcomes by age of child involved, so although we know that several studies included younger children it is not clear whether they experienced this scheme differently.

Youth curfews, where young people are not allowed in public spaces during night-time hours, do not appear to be effective in reducing children’s involvement as either victims or perpetrators of crime [58].

Wilson and colleagues reviewed [58] the impact of youth curfews, where children below a certain age are not allowed in public places during night-time hours, on both rates of crime by children, and on victimisation of children. They found that curfews have no effect on the overall number of crimes committed by children or the number of children who are victims of crime. In fact, during the hours of the curfew, a small increase in crimes committed children is seen (which may be explained by those breaking the curfew being stopped by police).

There is some evidence to suggest Drug Treatment Courts improve outcomes for substance using youth. A systematic review found a modest reduction in repeat offending among those who completed the programme [59], but this model is not used in the UK.

The effectiveness of drug treatment courts was assessed in one systematic review [59]. Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (DTC) are largely a US phenomenon, although they have been used in Australia and New Zealand. They address adolescent substance abusers who also engage in criminal behaviours. They are specialised courts that can require a one-year drug treatment approach which may include psychosocial interventions, educational classes, mandated school attendance rates, urine tests, but will always include regular court appearances to review progress. Although they largely focus on the young person, they often mandate involvement of parents or carers. The authors of this review find that mean recidivism rate for those who successfully completed the programme was 16 per cent per cent compared to 21 per cent in non-completers. They further find that, although age was not related to recidivism rates, younger age was correlated with higher graduation rates. However, it is not possible to know from this study what ages of young people were included in the primary studies and therefore what ‘younger age’ means. The search conducted was also narrow, and it is unclear if any studies from outside the USA were included, and we therefore conclude that this evidence is weak for our purposes.

While there is a strong evidence base to suggest restorative justice approaches are effective at both reducing repeat offending and improving victim satisfaction rates [60], the effectiveness when used with 8-13 year olds in particular has not been included in a systematic review to date.

Restorative justice is included in a broad range of approaches in the review by de Vries and colleagues [51]. However, they do not draw out any specific findings about restorative justice. While there is a strong evidence base to suggest restorative justice approaches are effective at both reducing repeat offending and improving victim satisfaction rates [60], the effectiveness when used with 8-13 year olds in particular has not been reviewed and established.

3.1.4 Pharmalogical treatments

There is some evidence that in the short-term use of risperidone may reduce aggression and conduct problems in children and youths with disruptive behaviour disorders and that clonidine and guanfacine have small effects on oppositional behaviour in children with ADHD. However, two systemic reviews also find high rates of side effects including weight gain, fatigue and sedation [49, 61].

3.2 Evidence from UK practice

While many of the interventions and approaches described in the UK grey literature could be applied to children aged 8 – 13, few targeted this age group. We also found few programmes had been subject to a rigorous evaluation.

As with the research evidence, when we searched the UK grey literature for examples from recent practice we found that while there were many interventions and approaches implemented in practice that could be applied to children aged 8 – 13, few were either specifically or certainly used for this age group. Often children aged 8-13 were either included at the older end of a younger age group (for example, programmes aimed at 7-11 year olds), or the younger end of an older group (for example, 12-17 year olds) or within a much larger cohort of all children aged under 18. We report here on those programmes which we are confident include children in the age group of interest, excluding those where it was simply not clear. We were comprehensive in our search for programmes, but we were not exhaustive. Many of the interventions we identified are no longer active, usually due to changes in funding or local priorities. Few have been subject to rigorous evaluations, but we highlight any evaluative evidence we found, and the strength of evidence rated using Early Intervention Foundation (EIF) standards [64].

3.2.1 Psycho-social approaches

Action for Children’s Serious Organised Crime Early Intervention Service works with ‘perennial non-engagers’, to provide intensive case work, whole-family work, and work with peers. An evaluation is ongoing [65].

In Northern Ireland, the Early Intervention for the Prevention of Offending projects for 8–13-year-olds tested individual case work delivered by specialised staff delivered over 6-12 weeks [4, 66]. There is weak evidence of a reduction in the likelihood of children being known to police.

Preventing Youth Offending Project (PYOP) worked with children aged 7 years upward at high risk of offending behaviour using a combination of individual and group work, together with art, music and drama workshops. There is preliminary evidence that offending behaviour decreased relative to a comparison group [67, 68].

Enhance Case Management (ECM) introduces a Trauma Recovery Model to YOT, increasing staff knowledge of attachment, trauma and ACEs together with multi-agency case work. An evaluation is ongoing, but there is no current evidence of impact [69].

Information was collected from 115 YOTs in England who report using point-of-arrest diversion schemes [75]. The schemes varied but tended to include short assessments with arrested children and quick referrals into light-touch, voluntary interventions. Although there is a research base to suggest this approach can be successful in reducing crime, few schemes were monitoring re-offending data and this report did not include evaluation data.

Youth Crime Reduction and Sport Pilot offered sports-based sessions to young people living in areas with high levels of antisocial behaviour [76]. One in five of those involved were aged 10-13 years. There was weak evidence of mixed success, with 3/5 areas experiencing a reduction of crime, one no change, and one an increase.

3.3 Summary of evidence

The strongest evidence for reductions in offending behaviour are for systemic therapeutic approaches such as family therapy and Multi Systemic Therapy. They are very likely to reduce disruptive behaviour, antisocial behaviours, CD and substance use in children aged 8-13 years. This conclusion is supported by rigorous systematic reviews of research evidence. These approaches are also successfully implemented in practice in the UK, including as part of individually tailored, trauma informed, responses to children.

Behavioural approaches (e.g. behavioural modelling, behavioural contracting) have also been found to reduce offending in research programmes. These are more effective when delivered in a family or multi-modal format.

Police-led diversion schemes, using cautions, restorative actions, and referrals to other services to avoid arrest, have been shown to reduce re-offending rates by about 20 per cent relative to usual practice. In many of the effective programmes actions are used in combination, for example police use cautions alongside referrals to other services or as part of a restorative approach. However, the evidence does not suggest whether the impact is the same or different in younger compared to older children.

While restorative justice approaches have been shown to be effective in reducing reoffending and improving victim satisfaction, the research evidence reviewed here did not examine whether impact on younger compared to older children. Given their developmental stage, we need more evidence to be confident this approach is also effective for children aged 8-13 years.

There is no evidence to suggest that curfews applied to all young people are effective in reducing either child offending or child victimisation. Evidence from older children suggests that responses from within the criminal justice system are less likely to be effective, and programmes which increase contact with prisons (both as part of ‘scared straight’ programmes or when comparing custodial to non-custodial sentences) increased offending.

Other outcomes for children considered in the research literature reviewed were largely closely related to offending. For example, school exclusions, problem behaviour, symptoms of Conduct Disorder, aggressive behaviours.  As with re-offending, there is evidence to suggest that a range of psycho-social approaches (approaches addressing the child’s psychological and/or social context) improve these. Systemic therapies, cognitive behavioural therapy, parenting programmes , skills-based programmes for teachers, and mentoring all have some evidence for success, however the impact on this particular age-group and context is not always commented on. The evidence for mentoring, in particular, is difficult to interpret, programmes vary considerably as does impact, and results for this age group are inconsistent.

The stronger evidence for more intensive, family-based work found in this review of evidence reflects what we know about the close relationship between adverse childhood experiences and disruptive behaviour.

Victims feel most supported when their voices are heard and the harm to them is taken seriously. We find no evidence that the age of alleged child perpetrators is considered in how we should support victims of crime.

It is essential that responses to crime consider the impact on victims and their families. There is little direct evidence to suggest we should respond differently to victims according to the age of the perpetrator.

Schools are common sites of harm, which means children are often both victim and perpetrator. School bullying programmes often have a restorative element, recognising that children will continue to be educated together and so the impact on the victim must be addressed.

Adult victims are often known to perpetrators, including parents, carers, and professionals working closely with them. The criminal justice system is not suited to tackling intra-familial conflict and the core issue is not the age of the child, but the limits of legal responses to the problem.

For victims, process matters as much as outcome There is little evidence that victims consistently demand stricter punishments. Restorative justice is valued by victims, particularly when they perceive offences are related to immaturity. However, younger children involved in harm or offending, may not have the emotional maturity or communication skills needed to fully engage in restorative conversations.

Having a minimum age of criminal responsibility of 10 years in England, Wales and Ireland results in contradictions and inconsistencies within the laws of the UK, is out of step with international norms, and contravenes the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

There is extensive evidence to demonstrate that criminalisation of younger children has negative consequences for children, including increasing the likelihood of future criminal acts. There is a strong argument for increasing the MACR to 14 years.

This review of literature and practice sought out evidence for the success of non-criminalised responses to harms done by children aged under 14 years. The impact on reoffending, on child outcomes and on victims was considered.

There are few interventions in either the international research literature or in UK practice that are specific to the 8-13 year old age group. In fact, most services and interventions reflect the consequences of the current MACR; since all children between the aged of 10 and 17 years could be held criminally responsible it is rare for age specific distinctions to be made within this. That said, in practice, Youth Offending Services (YOS) individualise their responses so it is unlikely that younger children would be treated in the same way as older children by staff.

Victims of crimes do not report greater satisfaction when children receive criminal sentences. Victims feel most supported when their voices are heard and the harm to them is taken seriously, regardless of the outcome for the offender. One research study in New Zealand suggests that adult victims of child offenders recognise their vulnerability and are concerned for their welfare.

No evidence was found within this review to suggest that raising the MACR would do harm but plenty to suggest that better outcomes would be achieved for children and wider society.

The process of conducting this review has highlighted the need for more data about the involvement of younger children in offending or harmful behaviour and appropriate interventions for them. Currently within the UK, data on these children is subsumed within the reporting of all work by Youth Offending Teams. There is also very limited recording of their involvement in non-criminal justice or diversionary interventions, which limited our ability to know how often these are used and to monitor outcomes.

In countries with higher MACR, data and research about these younger children falls out with the criminal justice system. and is instead included in wider discussions of responding to broader categories of behaviours and problems.

More rigorous data collection on interventions and outcomes for younger children who commit harms and/or more serious offences is needed to inform future practice but this does not preclude raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14.

The authors of this report therefore recommend:

• Raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 and transferring responsibility for children aged 10-13 years who cause harm from youth justice to children’s social care.
• Expand access to systemic therapies, cognitive or behavioural therapies for younger children whose behaviour causes harm.
• Build a system that recognises and responds to the impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences and Trauma on child behaviour. This is likely to mean providing training for professionals across sectors (including the police). It may also mean introducing earlier assessments to identify children likely to need more intensive support.
• Avoid using cautions, court orders, or convictions as necessary qualifiers for intensive intervention (for example from mental health teams). This is not appropriate for a criminal justice response to be required before young children receive the support they need. Needs should be assessed, and high-quality intervention considered at the earliest signs of aggressive, antisocial or disruptive behaviour.
• Where used, police-led diversion should occur pre-arrest, to avoid unnecessary criminalisation. Diversion should be embedded within a strategy which seeks to reduce punitive contacts with the police, and supports the police to link children to other supporting services (e.g. referrals to CAMHS, domestic violence services, referrals to local youth activities).
• Take a youth-led approach to design and/or selection of activities and interventions. Evidence from practice suggests this will increase uptake and avoid wasting resources on unpopular programmes.
• Neither area-based curfews, nor schemes which bring younger children into contact with older children with more entrenched offending should be used. Neither are supported by the evidence and are unlikely to be a good use of resources.
• Develop a culture of cooperation and support within linked Youth Offending services. In case studies, participants reported this facilitated programme success regardless of the approach taken. Good relationships between services improved the experiences of professionals, families and children.

There are also gaps in our knowledge that need filling. We recommend:

• Recording and monitoring non-criminal justice or diversionary actions; these should be recorded anonymously and reported at aggregate level to avoid appearing on individual children’s records. This would enable monitoring and evaluation of the use of tools such as youth justice orders, injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance and out of court disposals.
• Consider the differential impact of crime reduction interventions according to child age. This is needed both when reporting on the impact of commissioned activities and when commissioning research.
• Develop and test alternative interventions targeting children aged 8-13 years engaged in offending behaviour.
• Commission research into models of restorative justice or mediation appropriate for younger children, including when victims and offenders are in close relationships
• More rigorous data collection on interventions and outcomes for younger children who commit more serious offences

1. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Geneva: United Nations, 2008.

2.  Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019, (2019).

3. Brown A, Charles A. The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: The need for a holistic approach. Youth Justice. 2021;12:153-71.

4. Graham J, Perrott S, Marshal K. A Review of the Youth Justice System in Northern Ireland. Belfast: Department of Justice Northern Ireland 2011.

5. Delmage E. The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: A medico-legal perspective. Youth Justice. 2012;13:102-10.

6. Lamb ME, Sim MP. Developmental Factors Affecting Children in Legal Contexts. Youth Justice. 2013;13(2):131-44.

7. Royal College of Psychiatrists. Child Defendants London: Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2006  Contract No.: Occasional Paper 56.

8. Ryan EP, Murrie DC. Competence to Stand Trial and Young Children: Is the presumption of competence valid? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice. 2008;5:89-102.

9. UNICEF UK. A RIGHTS-BASED ANALYSIS OF YOUTH JUSTICE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. 2020.

10. Gray E. What Happens to Persistent and Serious Young Offenders When They Grow Up. London: Youth Justice Board, 2013.

11. Farrington DP, Welsh BC. Saving children from a life of crime: early risk factors and effective interventions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.

12. McAra L, McVie S. Youth justice?: The impact of system contact on patterns of desistance from offending. European Journal of Criminology. 2007;43:315-45.

13. Goldson B. Unsafe, Unjust and Harmful to Wider Society': Grounds for Raising the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility in England and Wales. Youth Justice. 2013;13(2):111-30.

14. Youth Justice Board, Ministry of Justice. Youth Justice Statistics 2019/20. England and Wales. 2021 28 January 2021. Report No.

15. Ministry of Youth Justice Board, Ministry of Justice. Assessing the needs of sentenced children in the youth justice system 2019/20, England and Wales. London: Justice, 2021.

16. Goldson B. Excavating Youth Justice Reform: Historical mapping and speculative prospects. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice. 2020;59:317-34.

17. Solanki  AR, Bateman T, Boswell G, Hill E. Antisocial Behaviour Orders for Young People. London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2006.

18. Bateman T. Criminalising children for no good purpose: The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales 2012.

19. Sutherland A, Disley E, Cattell J, Bauchowitz S. An Analysis of Trends in First Time Entrants to the Youth Justice System. Cambridge: RAND, 2017.

20. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation. The experiences of black and mixed heritage boys in the youth justice system, . London: HMIP, 2021.

21. Goldson B. Excavating Youth Justice Reform: Historical mapping and speculative prospects. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice. 2020;59:317-34.

22.ONS. Analysis of population estimates tool for UK. Office for National Statistics; 2021.

23. Staines J. Risk, Adverse Influence and Criminalisation Understanding the over-representation of looked after children in the youth justice system. London: Prison Reform Trust, 2016.

24. Caluori J, Corlett M, Stott J. County Lines and Looked After Children. London: Crest Advisory, 2020.

25. Lammy D. The Lammy Review: An Independent Review into the Treatment of, and Outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Individuals in the Criminal Justice System. London: Lammy Review, 2017.

26. Department for Education. Children accommodated in secure children's homes. London: DfE, available at  https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/children-accommodated-in-secure-childrens-homes, 2021.

27. Lambie I, Randell I. The impact of incarceration on juvenile offenders. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33(3):448-59. Epub 2013/03/05.

28. Mulder E, Vermunt J, Brand E, Bullens R, van Marle H. Recidivism in subgroups of serious juvenile offenders: different profiles, different risks? Crim Behav Ment Health. 2012;22(2):122-35. Epub 2012/01/04. 

29. de Ruigh EL, Popma A, Twisk JWR, Wiers RW, van der Baan HS, Vermeiren R, et al. Predicting quality of life during and post detention in incarcerated juveniles. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(7):1813-23. Epub 2019/03/16. 

30. Vinson SY, Waldman RJ. The pandemic paused the US school-to-prison pipeline: potential lessons learned. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020;4(11):799-800. Epub 2020/09/21. 

31. Padgaonkar NT, Baker AE, Dapretto M, Galván A, Frick PJ, Steinberg L, et al. Exploring Disproportionate Minority Contact in the Juvenile Justice System Over the Year Following First Arrest. J Res Adolesc. 2021;31(2):317-34. Epub 2020/12/07. 

32. Bowen P. Oral evidence: Children and young people in custody, HC 306. Q188. House of Commons Justice Committee, 2020 30/6/2020. Report No.

33. Ipsos MORI. Supporting Families against Youth Crime Fund Evaluation: Final Report. London: Ipsos MORI, 2021.

34. Scottish Government. Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019 Child Interview Rights Practitioners – Code Of Practice. https://www.gov.scot/publications/age-criminal-responsibility-scotland-act-2019-child-interview-rights-practitioners-code-practice/: 2021.

35. Petrosino A, Turpin-Petrosino C, Hollis-Peel ME, Lavenberg JG. Scared Straight and Other Juvenile Awareness Programs for Preventing Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2013;9(1):1-55.

36. Villettaz P, Gillieron G, Killias M. The Effects on Re-offending of Custodial vs. Non-custodial Sanctions: An Updated Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2015;11(1):1-92..

37. Cassidy T, Bowman B, McGrath C, Matzopoulos R. Brief report on a systematic review of youth violence prevention through media campaigns: Does the limited yield of strong evidence imply methodological challenges or absence of effect? J Adolesc. 2016;52:22-6.

38. Cassidy T, Inglis G, Wiysonge C, Matzopoulos R. A systematic review of the effects of poverty deconcentration and urban upgrading on youth violence. Health Place. 2014;26:78-87. 

39. Pardini D. Empirically Based Strategies for Preventing Juvenile Delinquency. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Clin N Am. 2016;25(2):257-68.

40. McDaniel DD, Logan JE, Schneiderman JU. Supporting Gang Violence Prevention Efforts: A Public Health Approach for Nurses. Online J Issues Nurs. 2014;19(1):3. PubMed PMID: 26812200.

41. Daykin N, de Viggiani N, Pilkington P, Moriarty Y. Music making for health, well-being and behaviour change in youth justice settings: a systematic review. Health Promot Internation. 2013;28(2):197-210. 

42. Rice TR. Violence among young men: the importance of a gender-specific developmental approach to adolescent male suicide and homicide. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2015;27(2):177-81. 

43. Parrish DE. Achieving Justice for Girls in the Juvenile Justice System. Soc Work. 2020;65(2):149-58. 

44. Thomann A, Keyes L, Ryan A, Graaf G. Intervention Response to the Trauma-Exposed, Justice-Involved Female Youth: A Narrative Review of Effectiveness in Reducing Recidivism. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(20):12. 

45. Sugimoto-Matsuda JJ, Braun KL. The role of collaboration in facilitating policy change in youth violence prevention: a review of the literature. Prev Sci. 2014;15(2):194-204.

46. Granski M, Javdani S, Anderson VR, Caires R. A Meta-Analysis of Program Characteristics for Youth with Disruptive Behaviour Problems: The Moderating Role of Program Format and Youth Gender. Am J Community Psychol. 2020;65(1-2):201-22.

47. Sawyer AM, Borduin CM, Dopp AR. Long-term effects of prevention and treatment on youth antisocial behaviour: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review. 2015;42:130-44. 

48. von Sydow K, Retzlaff R, Beher S, Haun MW, Schweitzer J. The efficacy of systemic therapy for childhood and adolescent externalizing disorders: a systematic review of 47 RCT. Fam Process. 2013;52(4):576-618. 

49. Waddell C, Schwartz C, Andres C, Barican JL, Yung D. Fifty years of preventing and treating childhood behaviour disorders: a systematic review to inform policy and practice. Evid Based Menntal Health. 2018;21(2):45-52. 

50. Bakker MJ, Greven CU, Buitelaar JK, Glennon JC. Practitioner Review: Psychological treatments for children and adolescents with conduct disorder problems - a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2017;58(1):4-18. 

51. de Vries SL, Hoeve M, Assink M, Stams GJ, Asscher JJ. Practitioner review: Effective ingredients of prevention programs for youth at risk of persistent juvenile delinquency--recommendations for clinical practice. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015;56(2):108-21.

52. Florean IS, Dobrean A, Pasarelu CR, Georgescu RD, Milea I. The Efficacy of Internet-Based Parenting Programs for Children and Adolescents with Behaviour Problems: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review. 2020;23(4):510-28.

53. NICE. Antisocial behaviour and conduct disorders in children and young people: recognition and management. Clinical guideline [CG158]. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2013.

54. Riise EN, Wergeland GJH, Njardvik U, Ost LG. Cognitive behaviour therapy for externalizing disorders in children and adolescents in routine clinical care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review. 2021;83:101954. 

55. Tolan P, Henry D, Schoeny M, Bass A, Lovegrove P, Nichols E. Mentoring Interventions to Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Associated Problems: A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2013;9(1):1-158.

56. Valdebenito S, Eisner M, Farrington DP, Ttofi MM, Sutherland A. School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2018;14(1):i-216.

57. Wilson DB, Brennan I, Olaghere A. Police-initiated diversion for youth to prevent future delinquent behaviour: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2018;14(1):1-88.

58. Wilson DB, Gill C, Olaghere A, McClure D. Juvenile Curfew Effects on Criminal Behaviour and Victimization: A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2016;12(1):1-97.

59. Stein DM, Deberard S, Homan K. Predicting success and failure in juvenile drug treatment court: a meta-analytic review. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2013;44(2):159-68.

60. Strang H, Sherman LW, Mayo-Wilson E, Woods D, Ariel B. Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) Using Face-to-Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2013;9(1):1-59.

61. Loy JH, Merry SN, Hetrick SE, Stasiak K. Atypical antipsychotics for disruptive behaviour disorders in children and youths. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;8:CD008559. 

62. Pringsheim T, Hirsch L, Gardner D, Gorman DA. The pharmacological management of oppositional behaviour, conduct problems, and aggression in children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and conduct disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Part 2: antipsychotics and traditional mood stabilizers. Can J Psychiatry. 2015;60(2):52-61. PubMed PMID: 25886656.

63. Pringsheim T, Hirsch L, Gardner D, Gorman DA. The pharmacological management of oppositional behaviour, conduct problems, and aggression in children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and conduct disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Part 1: psychostimulants, alpha-2 agonists, and atomoxetine. Can J Psychiatry. 2015;60(2):42-51. PubMed PMID: 25886655.

64. Early Intervention Foundation. EIF evidence standards London: Early Intervention Foundation,; 2017 [cited 2022]. Available from: https://guidebook.eif.org.uk/eif-evidence-standards.

65. McEwan D. Diverting children and young people from Serious and Organised Crime (SOC): Guidance for Practice on Recognising and Preventing the Exploitation of Children by SOC. Glasgow: Centre for Youth & Criminal Justice, 2018.

66. Dawson H, Dunn S, Morgan V. AN EVALUATION OF THE EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAMME FOR THE PREVENTION OF OFFENDING. Belfast: INDEPENDENT RESEARCH SOLUTIONS, 2010.

67. Nee C, Ellis T, Morris P, Wilson A. Addressing criminality in childhood: is responsivity the central issue? Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2013;57(11):1347-73. Epub 2012/10/17. 

68. YJB. Evaluation of Preventing Youth Offending Project (PYOP): Youth Justice Resource Hub. Available from: https://yjresourcehub.uk/evaluation-library/item/339-evaluation-of-preventing-youth-offending-project-pyop.html.

69. Cordis Bright. Evaluation of the Enhanced Case Management approach. Cardiff: Government Social Research, 2017.

70. Shaw B, Bernardes E. Forging futures through mentoring. A risk worth pursuing? London: Children's Commissioner for England, 20018.

71. Walker J, Thompson C, Laing K, Raybould S, Coombes M, Procter S, et al. Youth Inclusion and Support Panels: Preventing Crime and Antisocial Behaviour? Newcastle: Newcastle Centre for Family Studies, 2007  Contract No.: DCSF-RW018.

72. YJB. Youth Justice Liaison and Diversion Scheme: YJB Youth Justice Resource Hub;  [cited 2022 31/3/2022]. Available from: https://yjresourcehub.uk/evaluation-library/item/346-youth-justice-liaison-and-diversion-scheme.html.

73. Tyrrell K, Bond E, Manning M, Dogaru C, D'Cruz C. Diversion, Prevention and Youth Justice: a model of integrated decision making An evaluation of the Suffolk Youth Offending Service Diversion Programme. Ipswich: University of Suffolk, 2017.

74. Haines A, Goldson B, Haycox A, Houten R, Lane S, McGuire J, et al. Evaluation of the Youth Justice Liaison and Diversion (YJLD) Pilot Scheme. Final Report. University of Liverpool. 2012.

75. Robin-D’Cruz C, Tibbs E. Mapping youth diversion in England and Wales. London: Centre for Justice Innovation.

76. Mason C, Downward P, Walpole C, Cleland J, Aldridge J. Youth Crime Reduction and Sport Pilot Project. Evaluation Report. Loughborough Loughborough University, 2017.

77. Barrett KL, Jennings WG, Lynch MJ. The relation between youth fear and avoidance of crime in school and academic experiences. Journal of School Violence. 2012;11(1):1-20. PubMed PMID: 2012-00092-001.

78. Hayden C, Dlugosz G. Secondary school children and the experience of robbery: A survey in three south London schools. Crime Prevention and Community Safety. 2012;14(2):122-39. PubMed PMID: 2012-09512-002.

79. Howard League. Children as Victims. Child-sized crimes in a child-sized world. London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2007.

80. Gee KA, Cooc N. Will I be victimized at school today? How schools influence the victimization experiences of Asian American teenagers. Asian American Journal of Psychology. 2019;10(4):316-25. PubMed PMID: 2019-17532-001.

81. Hughes MR, Gaines JS, Pryor DW. Staying away from school: Adolescents who miss school due to feeling unsafe. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 2015;13(3):270-90. PubMed PMID: 2015-24824-005.

82. Stripe N. The nature of violent crime in England and Wales: Year ending March 2020. . London: Office for National Statistics, 2021.

83. Hunter C, Piper C. Parent Abuse: Can Law Be the Answer? Social Policy and Society. 2012;11(2):217-27. PubMed PMID: 952708720.

84. Nixon J. Practitioners’ Constructions of Parent Abuse. Social Policy and Society. 2012;11:229-39.

85. Wedlock E, Tapley J. What works in supporting victims of crime: A rapid evidence assessment. London: Victims' Commissioner's Office, 2016.

86. Russell N, Morgan R. Sentencing of domestic burglary (Sentencing Advisory Panel Research Report 1). London: Home Office Cited by Barretto C, Miers S, Lambie I. The Views of the Public on Youth Offenders and the New Zealand Criminal Justice System. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2018;62(1):129-49. 2001.

87. Barretto C, Miers S, Lambie I. The Views of the Public on Youth Offenders and the New Zealand Criminal Justice System. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2018;62(1):129-49.

88. Paul GD. The Influence of Belief in Offender Redeemability and Decision-Making Competence on Receptivity to Restorative Justice. Negot Confl Manag Res. 2021;14(1):1-20. 

89. Reyes-Quilodran CA, LaBrenz CA, Donoso G. A path to peace: A comparative study of practitioners' views of juvenile restorative justice in Chile, England, Italy, and Sweden. International Social Work. 2019;62(1):255-70. PubMed PMID: 2018-66484-020.

90. Bolitho JJ. Restorative Justice: The Ideals and Realities of Conferencing for Young People. Crit Criminol. 2012;20(1):61-78. 

91. Choi JJ, Severson M. "What! What kind of apology is this?": The nature of apology in victim offender mediation. Children and Youth Services Review. 2009;31(7):813-20. 

92. Choi JJ, Green DL, Kapp SA. A qualitative study of victim offender mediation: Implications for social work. Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social Environment. 2010;20(7):857-74. PubMed PMID: 2010-23636-002.

93. Allan A, de Mott J, Larkins IM, Turnbull L, Warwick T, Willet L, et al. The impact of voluntariness of apologies on victims' responses in restorative justice: findings of a quantitative study. Psychiatr Psychol Law.17

94. Van Camp T. Understanding victim participation in restorative practices: Looking for justice for oneself as well as for others. European Journal of Criminology. 2017;14(6):679-96.

95. Office for National Statistics. The nature of violent crime in England and Wales: Year ending March 2020. A summary of violent crime from the Crime Survey for England and Wales and police recorded crime. London: ONS 2021.