Peer review youth offending team inspections ‘could lift standards'

Peer review within the youth justice sector is to play a major role in monitoring service standards as formal youth offending team (YOT) inspections are scaled back.

Under new inspection arrangements, YOTs will work together to reflect on and review local youth justice provision and practice. This process will run alongside streamlined HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) inspections.

Lee Westlake, YOT manager at Milton Keynes and a reviewer on the first peer review, which took place in Brighton in March, says the system has the potential to spread best practice and drive up standards. There are, however, several issues that need to be ironed out. “There is a bit of a leap of faith needed for the sector to take it on board,” he says. “People shouldn’t assume it’s an easy process that happens by itself. There are resource implications and it needs time and commitment from the YOT seeking review and the reviewers.”

Funding fears
When the reduction in formal YOT inspections was announced, professionals warned that the plans could inadvertently reduce funding for services. This is because YOTs often point to recommendations in inspection reports to make the case for investment in provision.

But Westlake is optimistic that peer reviews could be used in the same way. “Because chief executives have signed up to the concept, it will carry some weight,” he says. “Time will tell if they give it the same credence as an inspection though.”

Another key issue to be considered is potential opposition from YOT staff subject to peer review. Anna Gianfrancesco, youth offending service manager at Brighton & Hove, says this was a challenge faced in her area during the first review.

“I’ve had mixed feedback from staff – some felt it was very fair and the reviewers hit the nail on the head,” she says. “Some, though, were feeling a bit bruised and battered and felt the review didn’t pick up on all the good practice in the service. There had been a significant restructure shortly before the review – some people had lost their managers. The expectation was that it would be less formal than an inspection, but when it happened it did seem quite formal.”

The flexibility of the review allows for a focus on areas deemed important by the YOT itself, a process that can be aided by a Youth Justice Board self-assessment tool.

“We were able to decide what paperwork we wanted to give them – basically setting the parameters ourselves,” Gianfrancesco says. “I am a new manager, so I wanted a broad-brush overview of where they felt the YOT was. It was what I needed, but if I were to do another, I would pick more clearly defined areas of work. I found it incredibly helpful – it helped clarify areas where we had questions.  It has also linked me in with a wide range of managers outside my region and helped to clarify my thinking on areas of practice.”

Lorna Hadley, chair of the Association of Youth Offending Team managers, says the organisation is keen to play a bigger role in the peer review process. “There is a lot of experience in the field, but much of it is being lost with teams being restructured,” she says. “We want to share that experience and help each other.”

Hadley suggests the AYM could be the “centre point” for support on peer review, helping YOTs that have been subject to review to implement change in certain areas. She says: “All YOTs have their specific point of expertise and AYM can help match them ?up with areas that need corresponding assistance.”

Inspection arrangements