Inside the Youth Justice Board: ambiguity and influence in New Labour's youth justice

Abstract

Purpose -The Youth Justice Board (YJB) was established in 1998 as a central part of the Labour government's radical programme of youth justice reform. Yet while it has had a central role in directing the culture, organisation and activities of youth justice in England and Wales, it is poorly understood. As its future hangs in the balance, this paper seeks to draw on a unique empirical study of the operation of the YJB to explore what it is, what it does and why it is so difficult to describe.Design/methodology/approach -The research involved 18 months' ethnographic fieldwork. For one calendar year (2006)(2007), research focused on the internal operation of the YJB including observations of meetings, depth interviews and documentary analysis. A second strand of research explored the regional operation of the YJB. This involved observations of regional monitors and assessment processes and interviews and focus groups with Youth Offending Teams staff.Findings -The research shows that the YJB is an inherently ambiguous organisation. This ambiguity has made it simultaneously highly insecure and extremely productive, enabling it to extend its influence and activities beyond those initially envisaged in New Labour's reforms. However, the difficulty in defining the YJB also suggests the full effect of its activities will only become clear once it has gone.Originality/value -While there has been much academic interest in the YJB, this research is the only empirical study of it. It, therefore gives a unique insight into the organisation and culture of the English and Welsh youth justice system.

Professional Perspectives of Youth Justice Policy Implementation: Contextual and Coalface Challenges

“…This, in turn, risks further weakening the degree to which practice views the YJB as relevant, as practitioners work less frequently and collaboratively with YJB policymakers, while simultaneously exercising increased local discretion, such that their perceived credibility and influence of the YJB (cf. Souhami 2011) diminishes at the local level. According to the AYM practitioner‐manager interviewee:

the YJB has blunt teeth, especially nowadays when youth justice is so insignificant as a political issue and youth justice policy has increasingly become part of piecemeal, integrated approaches locally, so the traditional YOT model is being lost.

…”

“…11Notable exceptions are the ethnographic research studies that examined policymaking processes of officials working for, and with, the YJB in England and Wales (Souhami 2011, 2015) and the YJB in Wales/YJBC (Case (2014), a study guided by Souhami's work). Both researchers examined how the dynamic, ambiguous and quasi‐independent position/role of the organisation provided it with the flexibility to shape policy formation and the youth justice architecture through which policy is implemented (Case 2014; see also Souhami 2015).…”

Strategic complexities and opportunities in Welsh youth justice: exploring YJB Cymru

“…The SIP findings regarding the YJB Cymru-Welsh YOTs relationship mirror those of Souhami (2011), namely that faced with incremental waves of new policies and procedures, YOTs increasingly turn to the YJB as its sole source of expert supportincreasing the 'flows of people, data and ideas between practice and central government' (Souhami 2011: 12). YJB Cymru uses data monitoring and evidence generation processes to provide guidance and support and to engineer privileged access to YOTs, beyond its original remit of being 'hands off' with local services…”

“…It is instructive to consider the role and processes of YJB Cymru in relation to the conclusions from Souhami's (2011) ethnographic study of the YJB for England and Wales parent organisation. Both configurations of the YJB (YJB England and Wales, YJB Cymru) retain a relative independence and distance from government that facilitates a critical friend role (which YJB Cymru has evolved into critical engagement), yet operate with an ambiguous, vacillating and slippery 'arms lengthhands on' identity in the eyes of both government (evidenced by recent legislative debate over abolition-maintenance-restriction) and YOTs (see Souhami 2013Souhami , 2011.…”

Towards a ‘welfare + rights’ model in youth justice

“…In fact, the National Youth Agency inquiry found a number of significant barriers to progress, including inhospitable statutory requirements and an unwelcoming 'culture'; lack of time and resources to engage young people; conflicting organisational expectations; lack of knowledge or understanding within staff teams; and a general absence of a strategic commitment to participatory principles. Indeed, the structural location of Youth Offending Teams and prevailing emphases on actuarial, risk-based and managerial frameworks for intervention (Smith, 2006;Case and Haines, 2009;Souhami, 2011) indicate that the prospects for progressive development within a tightly circumscribed service setting are extremely limited.…”