It was, apparently, Gordon Brown who coined Tony Blair’s famous soundbite ‘Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.’ While being politically astute, New Labour’s Janus-faced criminal justice tactics instigated a conflict in the government’s overall approach to youth and crime that has perpetuated since.

The last decade has seen two contradictory approaches to reform. On the one hand there has been a strong emphasis on tackling child poverty and social exclusion, and a set of reforms to attempt to create a youth justice system focusing on effective risk-focused interventions to tackle future offending and re-offending. Yet on the other, there have been measures to further a punitive agenda, particularly in relation to criminal justice. Despite progress there has been a rapid increase in the criminalisation of young people, growing custody populations and – consequently – a failure of the youth criminal justice system to reduce real re-offending rates.

We know what has not worked from the policies of the last 10 years. Research concludes that ‘coercive’ approaches that aim to deter young offending through tough sanctions tend not to put off criminals. Alternative ‘developmental’ approaches that focus on tackling the risk factors in young people’s lives – including those involving their families and their place in a wider community – can be more truly tough on crime. Damningly, evidence consistently shows that young people who enter the criminal justice system are more likely to re-offend when they emerge the other end.

Yet despite this, politicians repeatedly call for tougher sentences and more police attention directed at young people and targets have encouraged a greater focus of police and the courts on younger and younger offenders for more and more minor offending. The result? More children and young people are being criminalised, the youth custody population is growing, and targets to reduce re-offending – perhaps the most important measure of a successful system – have been missed.

A new moment for progressive youth politics?

Despite this, behind Labour’s drives for tough-looking initiatives, a more effective, truly tough strand to its youth offending policy may be gaining ground. The government has recognised that some of its tough targets were not working, although the trends have not yet reversed. Giving the new Department for Children, Schools and Families part-responsibility for youth justice was a step towards a problem-solving approach. The 2007 Children’s Plan and 2008 Youth Crime Action Plan toned down the rhetoric, and introduced a range of helpful measures to improve the system. And, just as importantly, the Conservative party under David Cameron is moving towards views on crime and youth justice that are more in line with the evidence of what does and does not work.

Popular debate and the politics of youth offending create real pressure for ‘tough’-looking approaches, no matter what the evidence says. But this combination of a more enlightened approach from the government and a new approach from the Conservatives suggests that a new moment for reform might be possible. Labour should take advantage of this moment to call the Tories’ bluff: the prevention of youth crime and the development of effective measures to help some young people away trouble should be priorities for any party positioning to promote fairness, wellbeing and community power.

In a new report, the Institute for Public Policy Research argues that a new youth justice policy should focus on preventing future offending by moving some offenders away from the criminal justice system, and should engage more closely with communities to ensure greater public confidence. To closely mirror the system in Scotland, we propose that England and Wales adopt a new ‘tiered and diversionary’ system that can deal more effectively with poor behaviour, using restorative community justice and civil courts for non-severe offending without recourse to the criminal system. But can a truly tough, community-based approach pass the test of public opinion?

Public attitudes – space for a tiered approach.

ippr conducted workshops with members of the public that confirmed that many people retain a view that youth crime requires a punitive response. However, by the end of each workshop, once participants had been shown case studies, they preferred a more tiered approach, and were more willing to want to support and help offenders who had got involved in non-severe crime and anti-social behaviour, whilst requiring them to answer and pay back to their community.

There is room for a middle way based on non-criminal approaches to non-severe youth crime, if presented in the right way. In Scotland the SNP has sailed a different – and successful – political tack that is ‘tough on drink, drugs and deprivation’ without pushing ASBOs and criminalisation. Yes, there remains a need to be seen to be strong on severe crimes. But people recognise that there are different levels of severity of crimes, and politicians and policymakers should emphasise the need for approaches that are appropriate to different circumstances.

Leadership for the challenge

Were our recommendations to be adopted by government, we would expect to see a decline in the rate of re-offending by young people. The youth justice system would become free to focus on more serious offenders while lower level offences were dealt with more effectively by non-custodial interventions that we know work better. In the longer term, we would expect to see the culture around youth crime change so that we distinguish between low level and serious offending and drop the blanket police, courts and punishment approach.

There is no question, however, that moving towards a new approach will be challenging. It is far easier to adopt a mantra of ASBOs and custody in the face of public anxiety, even when we know this approach may only make things worse. The challenge for politicians is to lead public opinion in more progressive directions on youth crime by adopting a community-centred ‘true toughness’ mantra instead.

Ultimately the responsibility of government, police and courts is to protect citizens and deal with offending fairly and effectively. Punishment has its place in a society that recognises the impact of crime on victims and communities, but if we genuinely want to reduce the incidence of offending and instil confidence in justice, so too must community solutions.