Increased accountability

Accountability within youth justice requires improvement. The YOS is based upon a hierarchical, top-down structure, and accountability does not follow the same process. The YJB does not monitor practice in a way that shows effectiveness. The YJB monitors if base guidelines are met, and if they are met within set timescales. Youth justice and mental health workers are held accountable to their managers, however, accountability within the YOS doesn’t seem to extend much further than this. That those without the power to create change are the those who are held to account within the system does not seem just. The YJB is ultimately responsible for the service as a whole, and so should be accountable for problems. It could be said that this was the case when the YJB was to be one of the QUANGOs that were closed, however, since that decision has been reversed there have not been any large scale changes to youth justice that would improve accountability.

The YJB should monitor practice in terms of its effectiveness as well as efficacy. At present mental health practice within YOTs requires improvement. Examples of successful and effective mental health practice within YOTs are largely due to the individuals within those

teams opposed to standards or guidance set out by the YJB. There have been numerous calls from research stating that youth justice is not working and large-scale changes are required (Crawford and Newburn, 2013; Goldson, 2011; Muncie, 2010; Newnham and Page, 2010; Pitts, 2003; Smith, 2010; The Howard League for Penal Reform, 2011a; Whitehead, 2011), but this has not been heeded by the YJB. Whilst change occurs frequently within youth justice, it does not affect the service as a whole, and largely consists of increasing targets or requirements for those who work directly with young people. That practice with young people doesn’t change (Kemshall, 2010; Newnham and Page, 2010) shows that the YJB instigated changes are not working as planned, and their main impact is to increase the workload of those within the YOS, giving them less time to carry out meaningful work with young people. That the YJB hasn’t acted upon this shows that they are not monitoring practice, and that there are ineffective accountability measures within youth justice.

Summary

The initial aspect of the analysis was to see if the forms of provision identified by Khan and Wilson were still present in practice. Of the eight YOTs participating in the research, seven closely matched one of Khan and Wilson’s six forms. The remaining YOT bore some similarities to one of the forms, but was not identical. This supports Khan and Wilson’s work, and could allow the research to continue based upon this framework.

The data was thematically analysed, the themes that emerged from the data related to mental health workers approach to practice, the identity of mental health workers, issues that occur in practice, the various factors that impact practice, and the impact that the structure and type of provision has upon practice. The themes formed a case study of mental health provision within YOTs. The case study and other information from the interviews were used to create a model of mental health provision and practice within the YOS. This was contrasted with a conceptual model of what provision would look like if social and criminal justice were balanced.

The comparison of the two models led to a number of suggestions and strategies to improve practice being made. The strategies relate directly to practice, and could be carried out by YOTs to overcome issues in practice. The suggestions relate to the philosophical aspects of the research question, and are aimed at the YJB and Ministry of Justice, as they require implementation across the organisation as a whole.

Discussion

Overview

This chapter considers the success of the findings in answering the research question, and considers how the findings relate to both the philosophical and practice aspects of balancing social and criminal justice within the YOS. There are three main sections to the discussion. The first expands upon the need for social justice within the YOS. There are a number of reasons why social justice is necessary in the YOS, but it is important that its presence is balance with criminal justice. It is discussed how the findings support the argument that John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness can be applied to the YOS, and would be beneficial to underpin practice.

The second section discusses the relationship between mental health provision in the YOS, and social and criminal justice. The ability to create balance between these two factors has a reciprocal relationship with the way in which provision is structured and created. Evidence from the findings is discussed relating to how balance can be achieved, and the ability to overcome issues within practice.

The third section focuses on the need for change within the YOS. To achieve a balance between social and criminal justice, principles are needed to guide practice. As the YOS has not used guiding principles to aid decision making across all levels of practice, the current system lacks accountability, consistency, and is not treating young people equally. Using justice as fairness to create principles would benefit practice, but it is likely that to apply those principles consistently, structural changes would be needed within the YOS.