Bleak Times for Children? The Anti‐social Behaviour Agenda and the Criminalization of Social Policy

Abstract

The introduction, expansion and reform of anti‐social behaviour (ASB) powers over recent years in England and Wales have witnessed the extension and intensification of interventions designed to exert control over children's ‘troublesome’ behaviour, with those residing in marginalized and socially excluded contexts proving a particular target for the use of surveillant, correctional and ultimately punitive ASB measures. The ASB agenda resonates with the state's approach to social policy more broadly to define, legislate and sanction in relation to the duties and responsibilities it views as fundamental to the membership rights of a law‐abiding citizenship. Charting the continuities and shifts within youth justice policy generally and ASB policy specifically, this article will argue that developments in each reflect a consolidation and escalation of the criminalization of social policy within England and Wales. Focusing explicitly on the use and impacts of dispersal powers (to be rationalized as ‘direction powers’ under current coalition government proposals), it will be argued that criminalizing modes of state interventions such as dispersal/direction powers are likely to promote children's hostility and exclusion from a law abiding citizenship and to extend the criminalization net.

Sports-Based Interventions and the Local Governance of Youth Crime and Antisocial Behavior

“…Considered through a "governmentality" lens, SBIs form part of a broader "assemblage" of control in which "inclusive" and "exclusive" governance strategies coexist. Thus, Positive Futures provides (conditionally) sanctioned spaces for young people's sociability, but in contexts where it is increasingly criminalized (Crawford, 2009;Jamieson, 2012). Similarly, skills-training is on offer, but for young people exposed more broadly to precarious globalized labor markets and decreasing levels of financial support from the state (Gray, 2009).…”

“…yeah cos it says on there, you're not allowed to hang around with a group of two or more, so that means that you'll be hanging around by yourself. (Young Woman,15) When these enforcement-led policy responses to "troublesome" young people in England are considered alongside claims made by young people and professionals about inadequate service provision in the "deprived" areas targeted by SBIs, a picture emerges of a context in which not only crime but criminalization is more likely to occur (Crawford, 2009;Jamieson, 2012;Squires & Stephens, 2005). Indeed, as shown above, this was viewed in fatalistic terms by a few young participants.…”

Troubling Times for Young People and Families With Troubles – Responding to Truancy, Rioting and Families Struggling With Adversity

“…Jamieson characterises this focus on benefit withdrawal as indicative of the establishment of Wacquant's concept of 'social panopticism' (Wacquant, 2001: 407) where social policy is employed as an instrument of surveillance of poor and problem populations (Jamieson, 2012). As antisocial behaviour is being branded in 'reductive, class-based and apocalyptic terms' (Sim, 2009: 89), less people qualify as 'deserving' poor anymore.…”

“…In effect, the proposal to withdraw benefits from families has engendered what has been characterized as a 'blurring, widening and masking' (Squires, 2006) process integral for the 'criminalisation of social policy' (Crawford, 1999;Muncie and Hughes, 2002;Rodger, 2008;Wacquant, 2001: 407) which promotes anti-welfarism and masks decreased public spending (Jamieson, 2012). By 2017 the UK is set to have the lowest share of public spending among major capitalist economies, including the USA, as a result of the exceptionally harsh cuts in public spending currently planned (Taylor-Gooby, 2012).…”

The impact of dispersal powers on congregating youth

“…What is interesting is that these types of tension appear to have become acknowledged as legitimate. Jamieson (2012), for example, notes how anti-social behaviour occupies an uneasy and unarticulated position between social and criminal justice policy. Likewise, she notes that it is this ambiguity that has facilitated the 'criminalization of social policy' around young people, and led to the, "construction of a 'responsibilised' and 'adulterised' young offender" (p. 460) that underplays the vulnerabilities associated with youth.…”