Youth Crime briefing - Nacro

Some facts about children and young people who offend – 2007The nature of youth offendingThe majority of offences committed by young people aredirected against property, despite a relative decline of suchoffending during the 1990s. In 2007 theft, handling stolengoods, burglary, fraud or forgery and criminal damage,comprised more than 62% of indictable offences committedby young people. Indeed, theft and handling offences alonerepresented almost half (46%) of the total and accounted forthe largest rise in detected youth crime over the previous 12months. Violent offending, which understandably generateshigh levels of public concern, is by comparison less commonand accounts for fewer than one in five (17%) of indictableoffences committed by children and young people.Moreover, as shown in the chart below, violent offencesaccounted for the largest fall of any offence type between2006 and 2007. 29instance, well over half (55%) of such offences resulted in apre-court disposal rather than prosecution.If the majority of offences processed through the youthjustice system are not towards the top end of seriousness, itis also the case that the large preponderance of seriouscrimes are committed by adults. During 2007, persons overthe age of 18 years were responsible for almost four timesas many violent offences and more than five and a halftimes as many sexual offences as children and youngpeople. Robberies were evenly distributed with adults beingresponsible for half the total as shown in the table below.Breakdown of selected serious offencesby age of offender – 2007Offence typeViolence againstthe personProportionattributable tochildren andyoung peopleProportion ofoffencesattributable toadults23% 77%Sexual offences 15% 85%Robbery 50% 50%While offences of violence can of course be very serious innature, it should not be assumed that all are. An analysis ofoutcomes suggests that a majority related to incidentstowards the lower end of the scale of seriousness. During2007, almost two thirds of violent offending resulted in areprimand or final warning, a higher proportion than forany offence type other than theft and handling stolengoods. In the recent period, concern over young peoplecarrying knives has attracted considerable attention. Giventhe way that offences are classified, it is not possible toascertain what proportion of those entering the youthjustice system have been involved with knife relatedoffending. However, the Offending, Crime and Justice Surveyconfirms that carrying a weapon is far from commonplace.During 2006, just 4% of children aged 10 – 17 indicated thatthey had carried a knife in the previous year. 30 The MORIyouth survey shows a substantially higher level of knifecarrying with 17% of young people in mainstream educationadmitting having carried a penknife in the past twelvemonths during 2008. However that figure represents asignificant decline from the response to the equivalentquestion in 2005 (24%) and a third of respondentsconfirmed that the primary purpose for carrying a knife wasfor sporting or similar activity. 31Robbery is another offence tending to generate the highestlevels of public concern. It too has risen in the recent pastand the figures for 2007 show a slight increase for the thirdsuccessive year. Nonetheless, robbery remains relativelyrare, accounting for less than one in twenty indictableoffences committed by young people.Sexual offending likewise accounts for a very smallproportion, less than 1%, of the total volume of youth crime.Moreover, offences of a sexual nature fell - both in terms ofabsolute numbers and as a proportion of all indictableoffences - during early 1990s and have remained relativelystable in the more recent period. As with violent offending,measured by outcome, many sexual incidents appear to beless serious than might be anticipated: in 2007, forThe characteristics of young peoplewho offendRisk and victimisationResearch conducted on young people who come into contactwith the youth justice system has found that they arestatistically more likely to share certain characteristics thanthose who do not. These ‘risk factors’ are typicallypresented as clustering around four domains: family;education; community; individual/personal. 32Such risk factors are generally familiar to those who workwithin the youth justice system. They are at the heart of theassessment model used by YOTs. 33 They constitute too thebasis for the development of the YJB’s ‘scaled approach’which seeks to link the intensity of intervention to the riskof reoffending, indicated by the score derived from Asset,the Board’s assessment tool. It is intended that this newapproach will be implemented alongside the introduction ofthe youth rehabilitation order in November 2009.Nonetheless, some commentators have been critical of the‘risk factor paradigm’, as it is sometimes called, on thegrounds that it focuses on individual deficit as the origin ofoffending, thereby diverting attention away from structuralconsiderations. 34 Others have pointed out that the statisticalcorrelations on which the model depends, are more suitedto making predictions about particular groups orpopulations rather than individuals and so have weakpredictive power at the individual level.Many individuals identified as ‘high risk’ do not offend.Similarly, many children identified as ‘low risk’ do offend. 35Inevitably the picture is rather more complex thanfrequently suggested. 36It is also sometimes contended that a focus on the fourdomains, described above, as separate clusters of risk ofequal weight, tends to underestimate the impact of the areain which young people grow up. 37 John Pitts, in his recentstudy of gangs, has argued persuasively that involvement incertain sorts of serious crime may be more closelyassociated with residence in disadvantaged,neighbourhoods than with the individual, familial oreducational characteristics of the children who live there. 38Indeed to a large extent, concentrations of poverty withincommunities are themselves likely to have a negativepage 4

YOUTH CRIME BRIEFINGimpact on parenting capacity within resident families, uponthe educational achievement of children in the area, andmay increase the risk that young people will come intocontact with drugs or groups of offending peers. 39Finally, one individual risk factor merits further attention. Itis well established that teenagers have a significantly higherrisk of victimisation than adults. 40 Moreover, within theyounger age group, the chances of being a victim are notevenly distributed. Rather the characteristics of those mostlikely to be victimised mirror closely the risk factors foroffending. One recent study has suggested that in relationto violent crime at least, the pathways from victimisation tooffending – and vice versa – are so closely intertwined, thatfrequently it makes little sense to talk in categorical termsabout victims or offenders rather than winners or losers inany given incident. 41 Certainly, in 2006, half of 10 – 15 yearolds who admitted offending had experienced criminalvictimisation within the previous 12 months, compared tojust 19% of those who had committed no offence.Conversely, victims were more likely to admit offending(42%) than those who had no experience of victimisationwithin the previous 12 months (14%). 42Whatever model is used to identify children and youngpeople who may be at risk of offending, it is clear that themajority of those who come to the attention of the youthjustice system are typically socially excluded, come from themost disadvantaged sections of the community and have thefewest opportunities open to them. 43AgeBetween 1988 and 2002, the peak age of detected offendingfor boys was consistently 18 years. 44 In 2002, it rose to 19before falling to 18 again in 2003. It has been 17 in each ofthe four subsequent years for which data are available. Thepeak age for detected female offending was 15 years in2007, as it has been for a considerable number of years. Asa consequence, two thirds of young people coming intocontact with the youth justice system fall within the 15 – 17year age bracket; 31% are aged 12 – 14 years; and just 3%below the age of 12.There has nonetheless been a significant age related shiftsince 2003. While the number of young people aged 15 – 17years who received a reprimand, final warning or convictionfor an indictable offence grew by 20% between 2003 and2007, the equivalent increase for younger children aged 10– 14 years was 31%. As indicated in the chart below, theoverall rise in detected crime in the recent period, involvesa disproportionate criminalisation of children below the ageof 15 years.previously have been dealt with outside of the youth justicesystem, since one would expect any such change to bereflected most sharply among younger children who wouldpreviously have been most likely to benefit from informalaction.GenderGirls are consistently less likely than their malecounterparts to come into contact with the youth justicesystem. During 2007, almost three quarters (74%) of youngpeople convicted, warned or reprimanded for an indictableoffence were male. Girls also tend to stop offending at anearlier age and desistance is more rapid than among boys. 45There is a common perception that the involvement of girlsin offending has been rising for some years. 46 Despiteincreases in detected female crime since 2003, the officialstatistics over the earlier period do not support a sustainedtrend in that direction over the longer term; indeed,between 1992 and 2002, the number of girls receiving acaution, reprimand, warning or conviction for an indictableoffence fell from 33,700 to 23,300, a decline of almost31%. 47 A possible source of the misconception is that whilegirls’ detected offending was falling, the number convictedat court rose sharply from 4,200 to 6,000. The divergencebetween the two trends is explained by a relative reductionin the use of pre-court disposals, generating a higher levelof prosecution: the proportion of girls’ offending resultingin a reprimand, final warning, or, prior to June 2000, acaution declined from 88% in 1992 to 72% a decade later. Nodoubt the increased visibility associated with such a rapidexpansion in the female court population, has contributedto the perception that girl’s offending is a greater concernthan hitherto.Since 2003, there has been a growth in girls’ detectedoffending, coinciding with the introduction of the sanctiondetection target. The increase is considerably sharper thanthat for boys. In 2007, girls detected offending was 35%higher than in 2003; the equivalent rise for boys was 16%.Again this pattern is more likely to reflect a reduced use ofinformality in responding to girls’ misbehaviour rather thana sudden expansion in offending by that group.Such a pattern is most readily explained as a consequenceof changes in police decision making pursuant to thesanction detection target. It is consistent with the use offormal responses to children’s behaviour that wouldRaceThe youth justice system has long been characterised by theover-representation of black and minority ethnic youngpeople. Children classified as black or black British are lesslikely to receive a pre-court disposal, more likely to beremanded to custody or secure accommodation, anddisproportionately represented among those receiving acustodial sentence. During 2007/08, for instance, whileblack or black British young people made up 3% of thegeneral 10 – 17 population, they accounted for 7% of thosecoming to the attention of the youth justice system, 14% ofpage 5

Some facts about children and young people who offend – 2007those receiving a custodial sentence and almost one in threeof those given a sentence of long term detention. 48The Home Affairs Committee in its extensive inquiry intoyoung black people and the criminal justice systemconcluded that the primary cause of suchoverrepresentation was social exclusion. However, theCommittee also found evidence of discriminatory treatmentby the youth justice system and noted elements within theblack community itself – such as a lack of positive adultmale role models - that might compound the negativeimpact of socio-economic disadvantage. 49Pre-court measuresFirst time entrantsIt was noted earlier in briefing that the target to increase thenumber of sanction detections has effectively been replacedby a target to reduce the number of first time entrants intothe youth justice system. Whereas the previous performancemeasure provided an incentive to deal formally withbehaviour that might otherwise have received an informalresponse, the logic of the latter indicator is precisely theopposite. One might as a consequence anticipate a futurerise in the use of various informal measures or formaldisposals that do not constitute first time entry.There is an increasing array of disposals available to youngpeople who come to the attention of the police for offendingbehaviour prior to prosecution. In addition to the system ofreprimands and final warnings introduced by the Crime andDisorder Act 1998, the police can deal with offendingbehaviour in the following ways:• A penalty notice for disorder• A youth restorative disposal (YRD), currently available ineight pilot areas 50• Recording no further action in areas where there is asystem of ‘triage’ in place that allows a process ofdiversion in appropriate circumstances following a YOTassessment 51• A youth conditional caution, to be introduced later thisyear in selected pilot areas for 16 – 17 year olds. 52The first three of these options do not count as first timeentry, and an increased use of each might accordingly beanticipated in the coming period as decision-making isincreasingly directed towards meeting the new target.Figures released by the YJB show that there was a fall infirst time entrants between March 2005 and March 2008 andthese indicate that the target for a reduction of 5% over thatperiod had been exceeded. 53 Separate figures published bythe Department for Children, schools and families (DCSF)also confirm that the target was met. 54 However the latterdata differ in certain respects from those provided by theBoard. First, despite the fact that the DSCF figures relate toEngland alone, they are considerably higher than thosereleased by the YJB. Second, whereas the Board’s data showa fall in both of the two years from April 2006, thosepublished by the DCSF show a rise in the first year followedby a reduction in the most recent twelve months. Finally,the DCSF data give information over a longer period,demonstrating that, despite the recent fall, the number offirst time entrants is still high relatively high by comparisonwith earlier years as shown in the table below.YJB data(Englandand Wales)DCSF data(Englandonly)2002/032003/042004/052005/062006/072007/08N/A N/A N/A 97,329 93,730 87,36777,912 82,782 82,782 101,507 103,955 93,601The discrepancy between the two sets of figures isexplained by the different sources from which they aredrawn. The YJB relies on aggregated data from YOTstatistical returns, while the DCSF derives its informationfrom the Police National Computer (PNC). The lower figuresgiven by the former suggest that the police are failing tonotify YOTs of a considerable number of reprimands andfinal warnings, despite guidance that requires them to doso. Performance against the government’s target is to bemeasured through PNC data.Penalty notices for disorderPenalty notices for disorder (PNDs) are financial penaltiesissued for a range of low level offences without the need fora court appearance. The PND is a sanction detection butdoes not count as first time entry, and one might anticipatethat it would accordingly be an increasingly populardisposal for that reason. PNDs have been available for 16 –17 year olds since 2004, and in period since, there has beena dramatic rise, of 407%, in the number issued to that agegroup. 55 The use of the disposal has also tended to rise at afaster rate than for adults. In addition, PNDs were pilotedbetween July 2005 and June 2006 in six police service areasfor children below the age of 16 years. Within that 12 monthperiod, 4,434 were issued to children in the younger agegroup. 56 It has been suggested by Rod Morgan, previouslychair of the YJB, that the expansion in the use of thissummary measure largely accounts for the fall in first timeentrants to the youth justice system. 57 As the table belowindicates, however, there was a slight decline in the use ofthe PNDs during 2007. The most recent reduction in firsttime entrants cannot accordingly be explained in thatmanner.YearNumber of penalty noticesissued to 16 – 17 year oldsAs a proportion of allnotices issued2004 3,793 6%2005 12,454 9%2006 19,598 10%2007 19,246 9%Reprimands and final warningsThe Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced a system ofreprimands and final warnings as a replacement for policecautioning. The legislative change, as the chart belowshows, reinforced a trend evident since the early 1990stowards a reduced use of pre-court diversion, from of rateof 73% in 1992 to 54% in 2002. 58 The subsequent three yearshowever saw a sharp reversal of that trend, a pattern thatwould be predicted if the growth in detected youth crimeduring the period was explicable largely in terms of a shifttowards using formal disposals in relatively minor casesthat would not previously have resulted in a recordedoutcome. During 2007, the rate of diversion fell slightly,corresponding perhaps with the fall in first time entrantsduring that 12 month period.page 6

YOUTH CRIME BRIEFINGCourt disposalsThe referral order was rolled out nationally in April 2002and, given its near mandatory nature for children appearingin court for the first time who plead guilty, has rapidlybecome the most frequently used sentence of the court. 60During 2007, one in three convictions led to a referral order.From April 2009, legislative changes will be implementedthat allow the imposition of a referral order for a secondoffence where the young person received another form ofsentence on the first occasion. The changes will also permita second referral order in exceptional circumstances. 61 Afurther increase in the proportion of convictions that lead tosuch a disposal might be anticipated as a consequence. Theorder has inevitably displaced a range of other disposals,particularly reparation orders and action plan orders, theuse of which fell between 2001 and 2007 from 9% and 11%of all sentences imposed to 4% and 5% respectively. Thereferral order has also contributed to the continued declineof conditional discharge, which accounted for 30% of alldisposals in 1999, 17% in 2001 and 9% in 2007. Conversely,there has been a proportionate increase in the use ofabsolute discharge as courts have tended to use this optionas an alternative to a referral order in cases of very minoroffending. Thus the proportion of convictions dealt with inthis manner rose from less than 1% in 1999 to 5% in 2002,before declining again to 3% in 2007.The supervision order remains the second most popularcourt disposal for children and young people accounting for12% of the total imposed during 2007. The use of curfeworders has risen rapidly to 5% of all disposals. That orderhas become the second most commonly imposedcommunity sentence after the supervision order. 62The use of custodial sentencing has fallen since 2001. While2007 saw a further reduction in the use of such penalties to5,830 from 6,183 in the previous year, sentences ofdetention remain high by historical standards, and remainssignificantly above that in the early 1990s.However, the fall in custodial sentences since 2001 has notbeen reflected in an equivalent reduction in the populationof the juvenile secure estate. Indeed the latter has tended togrow since 2000, as the chart below demonstrates. 63The divergence between the two trends might reflect thecombination of a number of factors: the imposition oflonger custodial sentences; a rise in the number of custodialremands; or an increase in the use of custody for breach ofa community order or of the supervision element of adetention and training order. Certainly breach has becomean increasingly important consideration in explainingcustodial trends: during 2007/08 breach of a statutoryorder (including presumably breach of ASBOs) accounted for2,179 custodial disposals, considerably more than any othersingle offence type and almost one in four of all custodialpenalties. 64Reoffending following a custodial sentence remainsconsistently high. Of young males released from custodyduring 2006, 77% were reconvicted for offences committedwithin 12 months. 65 The picture is worse for youngerchildren: the number of reoffences per 100 children aged 13years was 532 compared to an equivalent figure of 349 foryoung people aged 17. 66ConclusionThe latest statistical data provide further confirmation ofseveral trends from 2003 onwards that appear to reflectshifts in police decision-making in response to thegovernment target to increase sanction detections. The pastfour years have been characterised, in particular, by a risein detected youth offending and a relative increase in thenumber of girls and younger children coming to theattention of the police or courts. The establishment of a newtarget to reduce the number of first time entrants to theyouth justice system is, however, likely to generate agreater use of informal responses to offending behaviourand might accordingly lead to a reversal of the generaltrajectory of the youth justice system over the recent past.page 7

Some facts about children and young people who offend – 2007References1 Kershaw, C, Nicholas, S and Walker, A(eds) (2008) Crime in England and Wales2007 – 2008. Statistical bulletin 7/08.Home Office2 Ministry of Justice (2008) CriminalStatistics 2007: England and Wales.Statistics bulletin, November 2008.Ministry of Justice3 Ministry of Justice (2008) SentencingStatistics 2007: England and Wales.Statistics bulletin, November 2008.Ministry of Justice4 The latest such publication is YouthJustice Board (2009) Youth Justice annualworkload data 2007 – 2008. YouthJustice Board5 The Criminal Justice Act 1991 extendedthe age range of the youth court toinclude young people aged 17 years whowere previously treated as adults. Thelegislation was implemented during19926 Moley, S (2008) ‘Public perceptions’ inKershaw, C et al, op cit7 Ibid8 Ibid9 Roe, and Ash, J (2008) Young people andcrime: findings from the 2006 Offending,Crime and Justice survey. Statisticalbulletin 9/08. Home Office10 Jansson, K, Robb, P, Higgins, N and Babb,P (2008) ‘Extent and trends’ in Kershaw,C et al, op cit11 Babb, P and Ogunbor, I (2008) ‘Detectionof crime’ in Kershaw, C et al, op cit12 Nacro (2001) Public opinion and youthjustice. Youth crime briefing, December2001. Nacro13 For further detail see Nacro (2005) Somefacts about young people who offend –2003, Youth crime briefing, March 2005.Nacro14 Babb, P and Ogunbor, I (2008) ‘Detectionof crime’ in Kershaw, C et al, op cit15 It should nevertheless be acknowledgedthat the survey considerablyunderestimates the total volume ofcrime since it does not capture theexperiences of certain populations(including those below the age of 16years) or certain forms of offending,such as corporate crime andvictimisation or domestic violence. (Seefor instance, Garside, R (2006) Right forthe wrong reasons: making sense ofcriminal justice failure. Crime andSociety Foundation.) The Home Officehas now decided to extend the BritishCrime Survey to include children belowthe age of 16 years16 Jansson, K, Robb, P, Higgins, N and Babb,P (2008) op cit17 Thorpe, K and Robb, P and Higgins, N(2007) op cit18 Roe, and Ash, J (2008) op cit19 Phillips, A, Powell, H, Anderson, F andPopiel, A (2009) Youth survey 2008:young people in mainstream education.Youth Justice Board20 Phillips, A, Powell, H, Anderson, F andPopiel, A (2009) Youth survey 2008:young people in pupil referral units.Youth Justice Board21 Bateman, T (2008) ‘“Target practice”:sanction detection and thecriminalisation of children’ in CriminalJustice Matters 7322 Recognised sanction detections are:reprimands, final warnings, penaltynotices for disorder, convictions,offences taken into consideration andcautions and cannabis warnings. Thelatter two disposals are not available forchildren and young people23 Office for Criminal Justice Reform (2004)Strategic plan for Criminal Justice 2004.Home Office24 Home Office (2007) National communitysafety plan 2008 -2011. Home Office25 Bateman, T (2008) op cit26 Ibid27 Youth Justice Board (2005) Corporateand Business plan 2005/06 to 2007/08.Youth Justice Board28 Home Office (2008) Youth crime actionplan. Home Office29 The chart excludes summary offencesand overstates therefore the relativeproportions of more serious youthoffending30 Roe, and Ash, J (2008) op cit31 Phillips, A, Powell, H, Anderson, F andPopiel, A (2009) Youth survey 2008:young people in mainstream education.Youth Justice Board32 See for instance, Youth Justice Board(2005) Risk and protective factorsassociated with youth crime and effectiveinterventions to prevent it, YJB33 For an overview of the ‘risk factorparadigm’ and its relationship toeffective practice, see Nacro (2007)Effective practice with children andyoung people who offend – part 2, Youthcrime briefing, March 2007. Nacro34 Smith, R (2007) Youth justice: ideas,policy and practice. 2nd edition. Willan35 Armstrong, D (2006) ‘Becoming criminal:the cultural politics of risk’ inInternational Journal of InclusiveEducation 10(2-3)36 See for instance Haines, K and Case, S(2008) ‘The rhetoric and reality of the“risk factor prevention paradigm”approach to preventing and reducingyouth offending’ in Youth Justice Vol 8(1)37 Pitts, J (2004) ‘What do we want? TheSHAPE campaign and youth justice’ inYouth Justice, Vol 3(3)38 Pitts, J (2008) Reluctant gangsters: thechanging face of youth crime. Willan39 Smith, D (2006) Social inclusion andearly desistance from crime, reportnumber 12 of the Edinburgh Study ofYouth Transitions and Crime, Universityof Edinburgh40 Pitts, J (2005) ‘The criminal victimisationof children and young people’ inBateman, T and Pitts, J (eds) The RHPcompanion to Youth Justice, RussellHouse Publishing, 200541 Owen, R and Sweeting, A (2007) Hoodieor goodie: the relationship betweenviolent victimisation and offending: aresearch report, Victim Support42 Roe, and Ash, J (2008) op cit. For furtherdetails on the victimisation of youngpeople who offend, see Nacro (2009)Children and young people as victims:the impact on and relationship withoffending behaviour. Youth crimebriefing, March 2009. Nacro43 See for instance, Pitts, J (2008) op cit44 Bateman, T (2006) ‘Youth crime andjustice: statistical “evidence”, recenttrends and responses’, in Goldson, B andMuncie, J (eds) Youth crime and justice,Sage45 See for instance, Smith, D (2006) op cit46 See, for instance, Burman, M (2004)‘Breaking the mould: patterns of femaleoffending’ in McIvor, G (ed) Women whooffend, Jessica Kingsley47 Nacro (2008) Responding to girls in theyouth justice system. Youth crimebriefing, July 2008. Nacro48 Youth Justice Board (2009) op cit49 For further details, see Nacro (2007)Young black people and the criminaljustice system: the Home AffairsCommittee report, Youth crime briefing,September 2007. Nacro50 See Youth Justice Board (2008) Youthrestorative disposal: on the spot justicefor victims. Press release 26 November200851 The proposal that YOT staff shouldconduct assessments in police stationsto determine whether intervention mightbe offered to divert the young personfrom the formal criminal justice systemwas contained in the Youth crime actionplan, published in July 2008. The systemof ‘triage’ is being rolled out in the 69areas in receipt of funding to deliver theplan52 The youth conditional caution wasintroduced by the Criminal Justice andImmigration Act 2008. The disposal isavailable for all young people aged 10 –17 years, but implementation is to beincremental53 Available at www.yjb.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4185AA66-3076-4E32-AA07-ED1954390694/0/FTENov2008.pdf54 DCSF (2008) First time entrants aged10-17 to the criminal justice system inEngland 2000/01 to 2007/08, Statisticalrelease 10 November 2008. DCSF55 The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003allows the imposition of PNDs from theage of 10, and it is anticipated that themeasure will be extended to 10 – 15 yearolds in due course. For further detailssee Nacro (2004) Anti-social behaviourorders and associated measures – part 2,Youth crime briefing, March 200456 Amadi, J (2008) Piloting penalty noticesfor disorder on 10 – 15 year olds: resultsfrom a one year pilot. Research series19/08. Ministry of Justice57 Morgan, R (2009) ‘The smoke andmirrors behind the government’s“positive” youth crime statistics’ in theGuardian, 8 January 200958 The rate of diversion is defined as theproportion of cautions, reprimands,warnings and convictions that result in acaution, reprimand or warning59 For further details, see Marlow, A (2005)‘The policing of young people’, inBateman, T and Pitts, J (eds) op cit60 For further details of the statutoryframework for governing the use of theorder, see Nacro (2005) The referralorder, Youth crime briefing, September200561 The changes are contained in theCriminal Justice and Immigration Act200862 Community sentences for young peopleconsist of: action plan orders,attendance centre orders, supervisionorders, curfew orders, communityrehabilitation orders, communitypunishment orders, communityrehabilitation and punishment ordersand drug treatment and testing orders.All existing community orders will bereplaced by the youth rehabilitationorder on the implementation of thelatter which, at the time of writing, isexpected in November 200963 Figures for custodial sentences indicatethe number of such disposals imposedwithin a particular year. Populationfigures by contrast give the number ofchildren within the secure estate on agiven day and includes those subject tocustodial or secure remands. The latterfigures are derived from Youth JusticeBoard data available at www.yjb.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BCD5E610-5946-42F4-9BE5-10FA341B31AE/0/December2008Monthlysecureestatepopulationsummary.pdf64 Youth Justice Board (2009) op cit65 Ministry of Justice (2008) Reoffending ofjuveniles: results from the 2006 cohort.Statistics bulletin. Ministry of Justice66 Figures given by David Hanson inanswer to a Parliamentary Question atHansard, House of Commons, column875W. 10 November 2008page 8