Discuss how current social policy and legislation underpin social work with children and families when looking at Youth Justice.
To start this essay I will firstly define what youth justice is, before moving on to explain the historical background of youth justice in Scotland. This essay will be divided into three sections; the first two sections will identify the current legislation and social policy that is relevant to the topic and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these. The last section will then critically discuss inter-agency working and how the youth justice social work role links with other professions who work with children and young people.
Youth Justice
Youth Justice very broadly describes the range of practices and procedures for dealing with young people involved in or at risk of being involved in offending (Scottish Government 2016). Most youth justice practice in Scotland focuses on working with children and young people between the ages of 12 and 18 years old but this can vary depending on different local authorities.
During the 1950’s and 1960’s there was growing social concerns that change was needed in the way society dealt with children and young people in trouble or at risk. A Committee was set up in 1960 under Lord Kilbrandon to investigate possible solutions. Kilbrandon took an innovative approach for the time by emphasising the predominant importance of the needs of the child within any given situation and the significance of the failure of the upbringing (parenting) process with regards to that child or young person (Hothersall 2014). The Kilbrandon Report still remains as one of the most instrumental policy statements on how a society should deal with “children in trouble”, making key distinctions between the needs and the deeds of the child or young person (CYCJ 2015).
Legislation
The recommendations of the Kilbrandon Committee (HMSO 1995) led to the formation in Scotland of the children’s hearings system founded upon the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (the 1968 Act). This significant piece of legislation was at the heart of social work enterprise. It brought the responsibility for the delivery of all social work services within one framework, placed the duty to provide social work services on local authorities and promoted social welfare (Hothersall 2014). It set up the Scottish children’s hearings system and transformed youth justice in Scotland by removing children and young people in trouble from the criminal courts (Scottish Executive 2003).
It wasn’t until the early 1970’s and 1980’s that problems of child abuse – physical, sexual and emotional began to be recognised which saw a shift in emphasis towards protecting children and young people after a succession of tragic child deaths due to maltreatment and an increase in reported child sexual abuse cases (Adams 2009, Buckley 2015). These child protection concerns continued into the early 1990’s in cases such as the Orkney child abuse scandal where children were removed from their family under unfounded allegations of ritual abuse. An official enquiry was established where Lord Clyde condemned child protection practices in the Orkneys and called for a review of the current legislation (Clyde 1992).
It was then in 1997 that The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (the 1995 Act) was introduced this was the principle provision for state intervention to protect children and young people. It largely substituted those parts of the 1968 Act which relate to children and young people and marked an important change in development of legislation with regards to their care (CHS 2016). The 1995 Act was proclaimed to promote the welfare of children and young people and recognised their rights as ratified by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CYCJ 2015). The strengths of the 1995 Act were seen as being centred on the needs of children, young people and their families. It defined both parental responsibilities and rights in relation to children and young people and under S.22 it provided services to a child in need and placed an obligation on local authorities. Nonetheless due to the overwhelming numbers of referrals to the children’s hearing system and partly in response to growing public and political concerns about the care and control of children and young people in 2004 it underwent a significant review (Hill et al 2007). This review and reform came under the guise of the GIRFEC agenda which will be discussed in more detail later on (Scottish Government 2012, 2013) and resulted in a number of policy and legislative changes. This lead to the majority of the 1995 Act being repealed and the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (the 2011 Act) being introduced.
The purpose of the 2011 Act was to strengthen, modernise and the streamline the children’s hearings system to ensure improved support for the most vulnerable children and young people and deliver greater national consistency (CYCJ 2015). It reformed the structure of the children’s hearings system and introduced changes and additions to the grounds of referrals as detailed in the 1995 Act. It also ensured the children’s hearings system was fit for purpose in accordance to the GIRFEC approach (Hothersall 2014). The 2011 Act repealed parts of the 1995 Act which related to the children’s hearings, it replaced Part II, Chapter 2 and 3 and Schedule 4. Section 25 of the 2011 Act re-articulated the welfare principle and S.67 provides the grounds under which a child or young person may be referred to the children’s hearing in order that consideration can be given to whether there in need of compulsory measures of supervision. New additional grounds include S.67(2)(f) where a child is likely to have a close connection with a person who has carried out domestic abuse or with a sex offender (S.67(2)(g)) this use of different wording has widened the criteria to cover a member of the same household or someone with significant contact with the child (YJNDT 2011). In relation to youth justice the relevant grounds of referral would be S.67(2)(j) where a child or young person has committed an offence and now S.67(2)(m) where the conduct of a child is or likely to have an adverse effect on that child or another person. This was seen as modernising the grounds to take into account bullying, self-harming and serious risk taking behaviour (McGuinness, Gotts & Migunda 2012). However the lack of definition on domestic abuse and the broadness of the new grounds have been criticised as even if the grounds of the referral exist it does not necessarily follow that a children’s hearing will take place (McGuinness, Gotts & Migunda 2012).
Then finally the last relevant legislation when looking at youth justice was the introduction of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 (2014 Act). This Act was seen to formalise an approach to support the wellbeing of children and young people and legitimised agency collaboration and information sharing with the hope to further unify the children’s hearings system and GIRFEC principles (McCormack 2014). The 2014 Act introduced a single point of contact for every child up to 18 – the Named Person and introduced a multi-agency ‘Child’s Plan’ for every child who needs one (CIS 2016). These provisions will be critical to future arrangements in support of Youth Justice (CYCJ 2015).
Social Policy
The main policies and approaches that are seen to apply within youth justice are GIRFEC, Whole Systems Approach, Preventing Offending by Young People: A framework for action and the renewed strategy Preventing Offending: Getting it Right for Every Child.
The welfare principle which stemmed from the Kilbrandon Report (HMSO 1995) expressed the view that problems of children or young people involved in offending or in need of care and protection derived from the same source (McAra 2009). From the early 1970’s to mid-1990’s policies actively rejected punitive solutions for crime and fully embraced welfare values.
It was then seen from the mid-1990’s to 2007 to retreat from the welfare principle, policy transformation in Scotland post devolution (from 1999) by Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition was seen to move towards the ‘New Labour’ crime agenda (McAra & McVie 2007). It was the first time in Scotland where a shift in the political debate away from the language of children and young people in need and from welfare-orientated strategies towards a language of correctionalism, personal responsibility and punishment (Whyte 2007 p.169). Increased levels of managerialism were introduced, for example, the National Standards for Scotland’s Youth Justice Services were published in 2002 which focused on performance targets, effectiveness and monitoring evaluation. A youth court model was piloted in Scotland for 16-17 year old offenders with punishment a key aim in youth justice (McAra & McVie 2014). Then a new policy focus on reducing persistent offending and anti-social behaviour was introduced by way of civil orders in the shape of electronic monitoring, parenting orders and anti-social behaviour orders by means of Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 to tackle low level crime and disorder. If breached these orders could result in a criminal court proceeding of a child or young person as young as 12 which was deemed in direct contrast to the Kilbrandon’s welfare principle (Lightowler, Orr & Vaswani 2014).
Moving away from this conflicted and punitive phase of youth justice a change was signalled by the publication of ‘Getting it Right for Every Child: Proposals for Action’ (GIRFEC) (Scottish Executive 2005a) which highlighted a concept of not only changing the way children and young people are viewed but focused on individual wellbeing to improve the outcomes for children, young people and their families. In the case of children and young people who offend or at risk of offending GIRFEC encouraged earlier intervention by practitioners to avoid crisis situations, ensuring they get the help they need when they need it. Ushered in by Scottish National Party Government in 2007, the GIRFEC approach underpinned all successive policy decision making decisions relating to youth justice in Scotland (McAra and McVie 2014). A renewed emphasis on prevention and early intervention was seen in Preventing Offending by Young People: A framework for action (Scottish Government 2008d), it aimed to embed the principles and values of GIRFEC in the work with children and young people who offend and set out a strategic approach to prevent offending through early and effective intervention (EEI) and diversion from prosecution. This preventative approach was also supported and evidenced with Scottish Government policy such as Early Years Framework (Scottish Government 2008c), Equally Well (Scottish Government 2008b) and Achieving the Potential (Scottish Government 2008a).
The introduction of the Whole System Approach (WSA) in 2011 then transformed youth justice in Scotland when it rolled out nationally. This approach was seen as building on the GIRFEC principles and 2008 Framework for action and moved away from punitive, risk focussed measures back to a welfare approach (McAra & McVie 2014). The aim of this approach involved putting in place streamlined and consistent planning, assessment and decision making processes for children and young people who offend ensuring they have the right help at the right time (Scottish Government 2014). The ethos of WSA was diversion from statutory measures, prosecution and custody through EEI and robust community disposals and was founded on empirical research from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime (McAra & McVie 2007). This approach could be seen as being successful due to the fact that youth crime rates in Scotland fell by 9% and offence referrals to children’s hearings system dropped by 31% between the period of 2011 and 2012 (McAra & McVie 2014). However as suggested by the recent independent evaluation of WSA by Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (2015) the long term sustainability of WSA is predicated upon staff expertise, the ongoing work required to sustain WSA values across and within partner agencies and available financial resources.
Then finally the last relevant policy when looking at youth justice was the Preventing Offending: Getting it Right for Every Child (Scottish Government 2015) it renewed the government’s strategy. This Framework set out a new shared approach to achieving better and more consistent ways to tackle offending by children and young people based on the Government\’s belief that appropriate action must be taken at the earliest possible stage. The main focus was on prevention; EEI; managing high risk; victims and community confidence; and planning and performance management. It talks to preventing offending in the first place and focusses on supporting and developing the workforce to enable them to better support children and young people. This was seen in contrast to the previous strategy, Preventing Offending by Young People: A framework for action (Scottish Government 2008d), which didn’t give reference to children and young people like the recent modified version and no longer talked to the responsibilisation model of tackling offending behaviour (Barry 2013) This renewed strategy is now consistent with the Scottish Government’s wider policy of the GIRFEC principles and takes into account the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC 2008). It is also directly expresses the importance of responding to the needs and deeds of children and young people involved in offending echoing the words of Kilbrandon (HMSO 1995). To conclude it could be said that Scotland is now moving towards a new ‘positive youth justice’ as suggested by Haines and Case (2015) putting the child and young person first and offender second.
The Social Work Role in Youth Justice and Interagency Working
The vision in Scotland with regards to the social work role is that we are responsive to the needs of the people we support and protect, we are accessible and accountable and that we promote social justice (Social Work Scotland 2016).
In Scotland the fundamental job of youth justice is to divert young people aged 12 to 18 years who offend from the adult criminal justice system (CJSW 2011). Services should include EEI, diversion from prosecution schemes and alternative to secure care and custody and all practice should be informed by GIRFEC principles and WSA. Youth justice social workers should also be aware of the practice framework provided by the National Outcomes and Standards for Social Work Services in the Criminal Justice System (Scottish Government 2010a).
There are two quite different and distinct processes in Scotland for dealing with children and young people who offend depending on whether they are under or over 16 years old that youth justice social workers have to be aware of. Children and young people under the age of 16 who offend are generally referred to the Children’s Reporter. However if over the age of 16 and offend then they are generally reported to the Procurator Fiscal, and go through the adult justice system. This can be in direct contrast to the view that developmentally 16 to 18 years old should be considered children as suggested by Thomson (2010). The only exception to this rule is if the young person is between the age of 16 to 18 years old and subject to compulsory measures under the Children’s Hearing (Scotland) Act 2011 (s.199). Part of the complexity of the social work role in a youth justice setting is the fact you have to work effectively over both these distinct processes. Practice that crosses the complexities of both these distinct processes must take into account the childcare system which focusses on welfare needs of that individual child or young person and the adult criminal justice system which focusses on the nature of the offence and protecting the public interest (Audit Scotland 2001).
Research has shown that young people who are involved in serious offending are ones with the most complex needs (McAra and McVie 2010). Evidence suggests that almost all young offenders have suffered various kinds of abuse, neglect, deprivation and misfortune (Arthur 2007). Due to these complex needs along with dealing with their offending behaviour we must address any underlying factors such as complex family history, school truancy and social deprivation which have led to their offences. These complex needs can’t always be dealt with by one service alone. Hence inter-agency working is crucial to the work done in a youth justice setting in the drive for desistance. Youth justice social work involves working with different professional groups, agencies and organisations including close links with police, education, health, psychological services and other specialist services. For effective inter-agency work to occur there must be an understanding of differing roles and responsibilities as well as the commitment to work together (Mitchell 2011).
Where the child or young person’s needs involve two or more agencies working together delivering a service to the child or young person and their family then a lead professional will be needed (Scottish Government 2012). The lead professional is responsible for co-ordinating the multi-agency care plan for the child or young person, making sure the different agencies act as a team and that the help they are offering fits in with the plan and provides the appropriate support (Scottish Government 2010b). In cases where a child or young person is subject to compulsory measures then the youth justice social worker will take on the role as lead professional. Or if it is specialised support that is required such as offence focused work then the youth justice social worker can work on a voluntary basis and be the lead professional. In this case it would be the job of the youth justice worker to compile the child plan, complete a holistic assessment/ report for Children’s Hearing or court, complete a structured risk assessment, communicate with all parties this includes the child or young person, the family and all agencies and attend any Children’s Hearings or provide support at any court appearance.
The benefits of inter-agency working in a youth justice setting is that every child or young person is unique so we are interdependent on each other in the different agencies and organisations as suggested by Bronstein (2003) to get the whole picture of that child or young person. It allows a shared responsibility, it gives the other agencies and organisations a chance to contribute and gives us a group reflection on what’s effective or what will meet the child or young person’s needs (Bronstein 2003).
However a number of barriers to inter-agency working continue to be identified through numerous serious case reviews. As evidenced in the Care Inspectorate Review (2016) the mains issues highlighted were a lack of clarity especially in relation to accountability, conflict and competition between individual and organisations and differences in threshold for concern. A lack of co-ordination of services, or communication between agencies was also identified as a factor that has endangered children’s lives or lead to children slipping through the net (Mitchell 2011). This was seen in tragedies such as the death of Maria Colwell and then 30 years on from that the tragic death of Victoria Climbie which prompted a review of child protection system (Scottish Executive 2002). The serious case review that followed this identified the need for reform in practice and delivery of children’s services to improve inter-agency working and communication (Laming 2003). Furthermore a lack of common language, different approaches to interventions existing between agencies and perceptions of risk and harm has also been evidenced as barrier. This was highlighted in the case of Colyn Evans who at 17 years old murdered a young girl in Fife whilst subject to throughcare support and who previously had been on a supervision order. Yet again the major issues raised in this case review were lack of communication between agencies, assessment of risk, case management and supervision of the case (Scottish Executive 2005b).
Although statutory guidance has been published, policies and approaches have been put in place, information sharing between agencies and collaboration with social work services continues to be problematic. The hope for the future is the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 can alleviate these barriers by enforcing and strengthening provisions regarding inter-agency collaboration in terms of planning and practice (Hothersall 2014). Which supports the idea that was expressed in the Brock report that the pursuit of the well-being of every child cannot be achieved without integrated partnership working, including parents and carers, at every level and aspect of a child’s life (CIS 2015).
.