The principle was that youth justice services in the community should be co-ordinated and delivered through a statutory partnership of local agencies: social services, police, education, probation and health. Performance management has been overseen by the Youth Justice Board, with both iron fist and velvet glove measures to cajole and encourage better practice at the local level. But at no time so far has there been recourse to central government direction, control or intervention in the business of local delivery.
Not that the idea hasn't been mooted before. There has, almost from the start, been disquiet about the contributions of some of the statutory partners to the local resource, which has damaged local effectiveness. Health and probation services have been notable culprits. The capacity of central government to dictate to health has been limited. But with probation, since the inception of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) there has been more scope for manoeuvre.
Notional levels of acceptable probation contributions, in terms of people and money, were set on the basis of work undertaken by the Probation Service when this responsibility was transferred to YOTs. The demands of these responsibilities rapidly changed leaving a shortfall in resource for YOTs. Yet annual revisions to probation contributions would have been an absurd administrative burden and so the initial arrangements remained the benchmark. Inevitably, disquiet set in.
NOMS provided an opportunity for revision and review of probation contributions. A logical approach to producing a better deal across the board for YOTs would have been to take some of the NOMS budget and hand it out to YOTs. This idea had many merits but its critical defect would have been that it levered authority and influence away from local self-determination. It was ultimately rejected on these grounds: it might have been the start of a slippery slope.
That problem now rears its head again with Straw's proposals, which are likely to become legislation soon. With new arrangements for local governance both in England and Wales, the challenge is to ensure that youth justice arrangements at the local level command sufficiently high political and managerial support. Supporters of the new sanctions will argue, no doubt, that elected members and chief executives will wish to avoid being "named and shamed". Opponents, however, will say that when expectations are heaped on already stretched local government resources to take more responsibility for ever more complex youth justice policy and practice, this is an unnecessary and wanton attack on local democracy.
Howard Williamson is professor of European youth policy at the University of Glamorgan.
