Crime Reduction - Helping to Reduce Crime in Your Area

The provision to issue Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs) to adults for offences relating to low-level disorderly behaviour was introduced in England and Wales through the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The scheme was extended to juveniles aged 16 and 17 through the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. In 2004, the scheme was extended to 10- to 15-year-olds for a pilot period. It allowed the police to issue PNDs to 10- to 15-year-olds in custody or on the street, for 24 specifc offences (see Annex A). The juvenile PND scheme differs from the adult scheme in that the parent or guardian of the recipient is liable to pay the penalty under notice.

Title: Piloting Penalty Notices for Disorder for 10-15 year-olds
Authors: Dr. Juliana Amadi
Series: Ministry of Justice Research Series 19/08
Number of pages: 45
Date published: November 2008
Availability: Download full report PDF 522Kb

The 10- to 15-year-olds PND scheme was piloted in six police force areas (one included the local British Transport Police and one was a division within a force) between July 2005 and June 2006. The seven forces were able to implement the scheme based on local interpretation of the procedures which led to differences in the way that PNDs were used.

This report provides an overview of the use of PNDs for 10- to 15-year-olds in the pilot forces. It draws on analysis of administrative data and fndings from interviews conducted with the police, Youth Offending Teams (YOTs); recipients of PNDs and their parents/guardians.

Key findings

Number and nature of PNDs issued

• A total of 4,434 PNDs were correctly issued to 10- to 15-year-olds during the pilot period. The take up of the scheme varied across the pilot areas with Area B and Area A accounting for almost 90% of all PNDs issued. Area C issued only four PNDs. Marked variations in the implementation of the scheme by the different pilot forces may be the reason for the difference in the number of PNDs issued across pilot forces.
• 3% of all PNDs issued to 10- to 15-year-olds were incorrect. Mostly these were tickets issued using adult notices with higher fnes of up to £80. The exceptions were PNDs issued to nine-year-olds and offenders aged over 16.
• Across all forces the highest proportion of PNDs were issued for the three offences that count as an Offence Brought To Justice (87% of all correctly issued PNDs) with each of the three offence types accounting for over a quarter of all PNDs issued – 26% for theft (retail under £200); 29% for causing harassment, alarm or distress; and 32% for destroying or damaging property (under £500). 
• PNDs were not issued for four offences:
  
• breach of freworks curfew
• selling alcohol to a drunken person
• consumption of alcohol by a person aged under 18 in licensed premises
• allowing consumption of alcohol by a person aged under 18 in a bar in licensed premises
• An equal proportion of males and females were issued with a PND. This is different to the profle of the offending population where males are in the majority.
• 67% of PNDs issued by the end of the pilot had been paid within the statutory payment period. 31% had been fine registered. Of those that were fine registered, estimates indicate that almost half were paid in full by the end of the evaluation period. Taken together, an estimated 81% of all PNDs were finally paid.
  

Displacement from traditional youth disposals

• There was evidence that cases were diverted from prosecutions, reprimands and Final Warnings to PNDs, the most signifcant being the 59% fall during the pilot period in the use of Final Warnings as a form of disposal. The degree of possible diversion varied by crime type with disposals other than PNDs reducing by 63% for drunk and disorderly offences as compared with 22% for criminal damage.
• The scheme also introduced a signifcant amount of new business. Comparisons between the number of youth disposals administered before and during the pilot indicate that in Area B and Area A over 2,000 individuals were brought into the Criminal Justice System that would previously not have been dealt with through a formal disposal. Again, the generation of new business varied by offence type with an estimated 72% of all disposals for Section 5 offences being accounted for by ‘new business’. The introduction of PNDs caused the least net-widening for offences of retail theft.
• The net-widening shown by the administrative data is supported in part by the views of the police offcers who were involved in the pilots. Thirty-seven offcers reported having issued tickets in instances where they would not otherwise have taken action. These tickets were mainly issued for low-level criminal damage and disorderly behaviour. However, 71% of the offcers interviewed insisted that they would have taken action anyway. Rather than creating new business, offcers believed that the scheme has had a diversionary infuence from reprimands to PNDs.
  

Implementation of the scheme

• There was a general lack of awareness about the PND scheme for young people amongst police offcers and this was thought to have deterred offcers in some areas from using the disposal. Where officers were aware of the scheme, around half felt they fully understood the issues but most of this understanding was based on their experience of the adult and 16- to 17-year-old PND schemes. Most officers felt that the training on this initiative was inadequate and left them with uncertainties about how the scheme operated in practice.
• Most offcers preferred to issue the PND on the street since it saved them from having to go back to the station, although there were a number of forces who prohibited officers from issuing on the street.
• Almost 90% of police offcers confrmed that an appropriate adult was present during the issuing of a youth PND and most offcers found the arrangements for contacting appropriate adults to be adequate.
• Officers felt there were problems with checking whether a young person had previously received a PND as only a small fraction of all recordable offences were noted as Police National Computer (PNC) recordable on the monthly data returns to the Home Office.
  

Stakeholder perceptions of the disposal

• 75% of police offcers were satisfed with the pilot scheme. Most officers believed that the introduction of the young people’s PND scheme provided a good disposal to deal with low-level offending in a more appropriate way and that it was a useful and effective tool.
• Officers identifed two key benefts from the PND scheme:
• Deterring further offending behaviour particularly in frst time offenders - this was felt to be largely due to the parental involvement facilitated by the financial penalty. This view was supported by 74% of youth respondents who said that receiving the PND made them feel penalised for their behaviour and stopped them from further offending behaviour. The parent/guardians of young offenders were more equivocal about the impact of the scheme on re-offending. 
• Increasing efficiency - there was felt to be time savings associated with issuing PNDs for young people particularly when they are issued on the street. In these circumstances they were estimated to have the potential to save around four to five hours of paper work.
• There were some concerns expressed about the scheme. YOTS, young people and some police offcers felt that the scheme may unfairly discriminate against poorer families and may also affect the family relationship. However, the majority of respondents to the juvenile questionnaire did not feel that their welfare was endangered by receiving the notice.
• YOTs were also concerned that the PND could undermine the existing system for dealing with young offenders and the work that the teams do to try and prevent re-offending through treating the underlying causes for the behaviour. They felt that clear thought and guidance on where PNDs can usefully ft in would be beneficial in getting the most out of the youth justice system.

Improvements to the scheme

• Officers felt that more training on issuing PNDs to young people would be beneficial, particularly around issuing with or without an appropriate adult; when and whether they have to escort juveniles home; whether they can issue to juveniles already in receipt of a reprimand or fnal warning; and whether or not they could take DNA or fingerprints.
• The list of offences for which a young person’s PND could be issued was felt by some to need revisiting. Generally, the consensus was that more consideration needed to be given to whether the offences were the type that young people would commit and whether a PND would be appropriate as opposed to a more interventionist disposal.
• YOTs and recipients of PNDs felt that the scheme needed to be more equitable so that poorer families were not punished more. It was suggested that the monetary value associated with the PND should be made more commensurate with the crime and should be based on the family circumstances.
• The ability to carry out checks on whether an offender had previously received a PND was also felt to need improvement. Offcers especially those issuing 'on the street' felt unable to adequately check an offender’s status or background due to diffculties faced by control room staff in accessing local and national intelligence data bases.
• Practically, the development of another PND scheme has meant that the police have to carry an additional form. Offcers on foot patrol fnd this impractical and have suggested that the PND tickets are all incorporated into one.
  

Concluding remarks

Though there is some concern that the PND scheme for young people is punishing parents/guardians and not offenders there was some consensus that its greatest strength lies in the fact that it catches youngsters who offend early and deters them from future offending without any serious consequences or long-term implications. In addition, it has the potential to free up offcer time particularly when issuing on the street. Before the scheme can be said to be effectively deterring offenders, however, re-offending rates need to be examined. This was beyond the scope of this study but it has still provided some perceptual evidence from both the police and offenders themselves that it could be a potential deterrent and an efficient means of dealing with young offenders. 

Getting a copy

Download Piloting Penalty Notices for Disorder for 10-15 year-olds PDF 522Kb

Last update: Tuesday, November 18, 2008