Government youth justice review indicates move to a local system

When the interim report of Charlie Taylor's review of youth justice was published last month, much of the attention focused on the call for a network of smaller custodial establishments, so-called "secure schools", to be developed.

While this proposal has been broadly welcomed by the sector as something that could genuinely transform the way the secure estate works, other elements of Taylor's work could have equally significant implications for the way youth justice services are delivered in the community.

Outlined below are the findings and what they could mean for services and agencies.

Integration with children's services

One area Taylor is exploring is allowing local authorities to deliver youth justice services outside the traditional environment of a youth offending team (YOT).

He points to the innovative ways of delivering youth offending services that have emerged in recent years, giving the example of Surrey, where youth offending has been integrated into the local authority's wider youth services.

This, he says, means a child or young person in the youth justice system can access the same broad spectrum of provision as a child who is homeless, not in education, employment or training, or has other welfare needs.

"Although some local authority officers have stressed the importance of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act in requiring partners to come together in multi-agency teams, many have also asked for greater freedom to enable them to adapt their services to current demand and seek greater integration with their local children and family, youth or mental health services," his report states.

"In addition, there are concerns that in some areas, the existence of a YOT appears to have provided an opportunity for other local services to disengage with children who are offenders, but nevertheless require support."

Taylor's findings and comments suggest the days of the traditional YOT may be numbered.

Lin Hinnigan, chief executive of the Youth Justice Board (YJB), says many YOTs have already moved away from the traditional model. "Things have changed since YOTs were set up and different YOTs operate in different ways," she says.

"Some are integrated with youth services, some are integrated with children's services and some YOTs lead on troubled families or multi-agency safeguarding hubs.

"There is a lot to be said for integrating. Many young people are the same young people who come into contact with the care system and other local services. They are vulnerable and at risk, and have a lot of needs. There is a lot of value in integrating.

"Whether or not you have something called a YOT is less important than retaining the key specialist skills. If powers are devolved to local authorities, we would like to see minimum standards around certain elements of work that are key."

However, Gareth Jones, chair of the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers, says he has already raised concerns with Taylor about the idea of "subsuming" YOTs into wider service areas.

"People have this view of integration, that it is all about sitting in the same team. It is not - it's as much a state of mind.

"In my youth offending team, we work with police officers and frontline educationalists, but we don't need to be in the same team to work in an integrated fashion."

He says subsuming YOTs into children's services presents a "huge danger".

"At the very sharp end, child protection is everything for children's services," he says. "If you have to prioritise everything against a child protection model, some of the young people on our books won't get worked with. We have to be very cautious about who does what."

Delivering services regionally

Alongside exploring the relaxation of frontline delivery structures, Taylor's report reveals that local areas such as London and Greater Manchester, and even the whole of Wales, could be in line for greater control over the delivery of youth justice services.

The review team says officials from Gloucestershire, Surrey, Sussex, West Yorkshire, and a partnership of local authorities and the police in the West Midlands have also expressed an ambition for greater control over the delivery of youth justice services in order to "pool resources, integrate functions, and commission services more strategically".

"A number are developing proposals which are informing our thinking," Taylor states.

London mayor Boris Johnson has been keen on devolution for some time, with his Police and Crime Plan for 2013 to 2016 stating that the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (Mopac), would push the government for "greater responsibility for London's youth justice budget and more formal oversight of youth justice in the capital".

However, Hinnigan believes such a move would not be straightforward.

"In London, while Mopac is very keen, many boroughs will want to do it on a more collaborative approach with other boroughs.

"What size of unit is right for devolution is open to discussion. Part of it will be about what works and who can work together."

Gareth Jones says that although he can see the attraction in regional devolution, he is unsure about potentially handing responsibility for youth justice to an elected politician.

"Politicians may not be around for a long time," he says.

"Should statutory services be under the control of someone who is up for election every three or four years?"

Devolving custody budgets

Taylor has also said that the review will go on to consider the feasibility of devolving budgets and responsibility for youth custody to local areas or regional bodies.

The rationale for this is that it would allow local partners to consider commissioning services that meet the needs of a wider cohort of vulnerable young people, including children in care and those requiring secure mental health provision, eroding the "sharp boundary" between custody and community provision.

Hinnigan says she is keen for more continuity between custodial and community provision.

"One of the key principles we set out in our early thinking was about integrating the youth justice system across custody and community," she says.

"The disconnect between custody and community is something we need to address as a priority.

"If you have an integrated system whereby communities are responsible for young people, they don't forget about them for a bit."

However, she adds that it will be a "fairly long journey" to get to a point where local authorities have the skills to commission secure provision themselves. "(Devolving) funding is the first step," she says.

"We might see a journey through co-commissioning with us (the YJB), and eventually onto local commissioning," she says.

But she adds that Taylor's desire for local provision of smaller secure units could help towards this.

Children's Commissioner for England Anne Longfield says the review's aim to treat children who break the law differently to adults and to help them to overcome their difficulties through a focus on education, alongside a commitment to providing therapeutic support in smaller units based in the regions which they serve, is welcome.

But she also wants a commitment from the government to try to reduce the number of under-18s in custody, which currently stands (as of December 2015) at 929 to below the 500 mark.

"I would like the review to go further and identify ways to reduce the number of children in custody by a further 50 per cent by the end of this parliament through more community sentences and restorative justice programmes wherever they are appropriate," she says.

"I also want a far greater focus on early intervention so that children do not get in trouble in the first place.

"It is clear that children who do offend are most likely to have deep-rooted social problems, so I welcome moves to closely align youth offending teams with child protection services to help to build resilience and desistance from crime."

Youth justice review interim report: Key findings

Secure academies

The report calls for the creation of a network of smaller custodial establishments in the form of secure schools to replace young offender institutions.

Regional devolution

Taylor says he is keen for devolution of further responsibility and funding for the delivery of youth justice to local areas to give them greater flexibility to design and manage the system to fit with their priorities and needs.

Custody budgets

The review will consider the feasibility of devolving custody budgets and commissioning responsibility for youth custody to local areas or regional bodies.

Distinct system

Taylor says it is "essential" that youth justice continues to be considered by Ministers discretely from the adult justice system.

Diversion

The review will explore further the opportunities to divert children from the system where their offending does not require a formal response, or where other services are better placed to tackle the causes of their offending.

Criminal records

The report emphasises the need to ensure that a child's contact with the criminal justice system, particularly where it is "fleeting or the result of low-level offending", does not disproportionately affect their long-term aspirations. The review will consider whether the long-term consequences of receiving a criminal record strike the right balance between protecting the public and employers from risk and promoting the reintegration and rehabilitation of young offenders.

Disproportionality

The review will also consider what more can be done to address the over-representation in the youth justice system of both looked-after children and those from some black and minority ethnic groups.

YOUTH JUSTICE IN NUMBERS

156 - Number of youth offending teams in England and Wales

74% - Fall in caseloads of youth offending teams since 2006/07

929 - Number of under-18s in custody (as of December 2015)

77% - Fall in proven youth offending since 2006/07

Source: Ministry of Justice