‘Child friendly’ international human rights standards and youth offending team partnerships

Abstract

International human rights standards stipulate that youth justice should be 'child friendly' and protect the 'best interests' or welfare of young people who offend. The multi-agency composition of youth offending teams (YOTs) in England and Wales seems to offer the ideal arrangement to achieve these standards. Yet while official inspections generally praise YOTs highly for reducing the risk of reoffending, independent research reveal significant shortfalls in their work to address the social welfare difficulties of young people who offend. This article uses an empirical study of YOT partnerships to explore why young people's social welfare needs are not being met. It challenges explanations which blame the audit culture and public spending cuts, and argues that such failure stems from the way young people's social welfare problems are framed. The article ends on a positive note by considering how a rights-based approach could be used to uphold young people's social rights.

AN EXPLORATION OF PARTNERSHIP WORKING BETWEEN THE YOUTH JUSTICE SERVICE AND THE MULTI-AGENCY SAFEGUARDING HUB & FIRST RESPONSE TEAM IN RELATION TO SAFEGUARDING REFERRALS REGARDING YOUNG PEOPLE SUPERVISED BY THE YOUTH JUSTICE SERVICE

“…MASH also justified not acting in the case when YJS worker was involved and this is something which was also evident in previous research (Gray 2016):…”

“…My findings suggested that there were strong protocols present within both services to facilitate joint working however when it come to executing these in practice this was not evidenced, which was also noticed in research undertaken by YJB (2010), Gray (2016) and Briggs (2013). As such, YJS had an overwhelming feeling of working in isolation and as if their involvement with young people was invisible to the MASH and First Response Team.…”

“…However, when it came to executing these in practice this was not evidenced, which was also noticed in research undertaken by YJB (2010), Gray (2016) and Briggs (2013).…”

“…Youth Offending Teams nationally are subject to regular inspection and in recent years they have mostly receive positive comments as the inspectors commented that 'partnership work was a key strength' (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection 2013 cited in Gray 2016: 60). Nevertheless, Gray (2016) points out that more independent research suggests a more negative picture, especially of the partnership between YOTs and children services as they fail to fully address the complex needs of the young people which are often multifaceted (Gray 2016: 60). It has been pointed out that the culture of encouraging collaborative working arrangements to address young people's welfare issues has unintentionally created tensions between YOTs and their social services partners due to incompatibility and clashing targets (Souhami 2009in Gray 2016.…”

“…MASH acknowledged that the thresholds were high and this was a result of the amount of the referrals received daily, however YJS questioned this as neglecting young people needs and similarly to Gray (2016), questioned if the young people who offend are being effectively protected from harm and abusive relationships (Gray 2016) due to high thresholds.…”