. 1-ý-ý ý1ý ..jý

Youth Justice at the Interface: The Development of a Multi-professional Team in a Multi-agency Partnership

Paul Rigby

Thesissubmitted for the degreeof Doctor of Philosophy Departmentof Applied Social Science University of Stirling 2005 i

ý, I declarethat none of the work contained in this thesis has been submitted for any other degreeat any university. The contents of this thesis have been composed by Paul Rigby. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my thanks to my supervisors, Professor Gill McIvor and Dr Margaret Malloch, for the support, guidance and advice they provided during the course of this thesis. Their expertise proved invaluable on numerous occasions.

Thanks to the ESRC who provided the funding that enabled me to make the decision to undertake the research in the first place. Thanks also to Falkirk Council for additional support.

Finally, I am grateful to all those individuals, and organisations, who agreedto participate in the researchby sharing their experienceswith me. CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 5

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION 7

Chapter 2

YOUTH JUSTICE POLICY 15

Incidence of youth crime in Scotland 16 Conceptual frameworks for youth justice 22 (The welfare justice debate) Historical and internationalpolicy developments 29 Youth justice in Scotland 46 Conclusion 57

Chapter 3

THE POLICY OF PARTNERSHIP IN A MANAGERIALIST, EVIDENCE-BASED FRAMEWORK 59

Governance and corporatism in New Labour's `Third Way' 60 Evidence-based policy and practice 67 Working together in multi-agency partnerships 81 Partnership policy in Scotland 98 Conclusion 107

Chapter 4

YOUTH JUSTICE IN FALKIRK 110

Strategicmanagement 111 Connect 114 FreagarrachFalkirk 118 Connectand Freagarrach inter-agency partnership 120 Developmentsin 2005 124

2 Chapter 5

METHODS 125

Ethical research 130 Changingfocus - developmentsin policy andresearch design 132 Researchin context- the casestudy 135 Methods- implementationfrom theory to practice 138 Conclusion 167

Chapter 6

PERCEPTIONS OF POLICY 169 (Consensus or disagreement with policy directions)

Integration of national and local policy 170 Policy at the interface of the child and adult systems 175 The role of Connect in local youth justice policy 192 Conclusion 195

Chapter 7

DELIVERY OF SERVICES AND NATURE OF INTERVENTIONS 199

Referral andassessment 200 Structuredintervention or `programmes'- the contentof services 221 Effectivenessof services 228 Conclusion 237

Chapter 8

A MULTI-PROFESSIONAL TEAM IN A MULTI-AGENCY PARTNERSHIP 243

Connect- the multi-professionalteam 243 Falkirk - the multi-agencypartnership 259 Casemanagement 264 Communicationand information sharing 275 Conclusion 281

3 Chapter 9

CONCLUSIONS 287

Multi-professional team 288 Multi-agency working 291 National implications 296 Futureresearch 302 Concludingcomments 303

REFERENCES 307

APPENDICES

1. Youth Crime Review recommendations 335 2. Ten Point Action Plan 336 3. Definitions of partnership and Falkirk arrangements 337 4. Chronology of research, policy and practice 339 5. Composite interview schedule 341 6. Sourceof referralsto the Youth JusticeReferral Group 346 7. Communityjustice accreditationpanel - programmedefinition 347 7. Connectprogramme `menu' 348

4 ABSTRACT

This thesisinvestigates the developmentof a multi-professionalyouth justice team in Falkirk,

Central Scotland,established following the Scottish Executive(2000) Youth Crime Review.

The contribution of the multi-professionalteam was examined in relation to the potential benefits of having a range of professionals in one team operating in broader partnership arrangements. The extent that these arrangements facilitated implementation of evidence- based practice was also explored. Local strategy was analysed as a constituent of national policy, as Scotland began to develop a youth justice system containing aspects of the `Third

Way' corporatist, managerial model evident in England and Wales.

The multi-professionalyouth justice project of Connectwas the focus of the thesis, although close multi-agency networks necessitated analysis of wider partnership arrangements.

Employing a multi-methodscase study approachmaximised the availabledata andprovided a rich understandingof the context and processesof local policy development.Interviews with a range of stakeholdersin the Falkirk areaconstituted the primary data source,supported by observationof the working arrangements,document analysis and secondarystatistical data.

Elementsof action researchallowed ongoing data to be utilised by Falkirk Council to develop serviceprovision while the researchprogressed.

Findings are examinedin relation to the wider theoretical implications of adopting a `what works' agendain a youth justice systemthat has, for over thirty years,been predicatedon a diversionary welfare principle. The arrangementsin Falkirk may provide a model for multi- professionalyouth justice work that doesnot embracea centralised,punitive agenda.

5 The research indicated that a multi-professional project could make a positive contribution to wider multi-agency arrangements, supporting the government aims of increased partnership working. It also suggestedthat operational developments,facilitated by practitioners in a bottom-up approach,could implement change capable of delivering services utilised and appreciatedby serviceusers, and meetingthe standardsset by the Scottish Executive.Further research will be necessaryto provide evidence regarding the effectivenessof specific partnershiparrangements in reducing offending and improving the circumstancesof young people.

While the individual natureof local authority responsesto the Youth Crime Review indicates that a national solution may not be desirable,the findings from Falkirk provide data about thosefactors that may facilitate or inhibit developmentsin partnershipworking, which is now part of the framework of youth justice provision in Scotland. Individual case studies can provide evidencethat youth justice practicein Scotlandcan retain a local, child centredfocus.

Such evidencemay halt further moves towards a `one size fits all' justice model, which predominatesin Englandand Wales.

6 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Contemporary international public concern about youth offending is widespread, with a particular public perception that juvenile violence is increasing (UNICEF 1998; de Boer-

Buqhicchio 2003). In the UK there is an intense political and media spotlight on all aspects of criminal and anti-social behaviour by young people, with frequent reference in the Scottish 1 media and Parliament to `neds' (Barnes 2004; BBC 2003). Despite these concerns, evidence about the extent to which young people are involved in offending behaviour, and the efficacy of responses, remains difficult to ascertain at both national and international level (Buckland

in and Stevens 2001). Where there is some consensus is the departure, since the 1970s most jurisdictions, from responses based on welfare and needs to a justice based response

Care concerned with just deserts and proportionality (Bala and Bromwich 2002). and

protection and offending issues are increasingly separated and, particularly in the USA and

England and Wales, justice for young people is now seen as being based primarily on a

punitive model (Muncie 2004; Smith R 2003).

Since 1997 in the UK, modernisedpolicy making (Nutley et al 2003) predicated on the

corporatistgovernance of youth justice (Pratt 1989; Pitts 2003) has increasinglyfocussed on

an evidence-based,`what works' framework (see Whyte 2004a; Vennard et al 1997)

underpinnedby a managerialist agenda(Muncie and Hughes 2002). Some commentators

view this responseto young peoplewho offend as an abdication of responsibility by the state

to address some of the underlying causesof offending behaviour by focussing on the

' 'Nods' is a derogatoryterm applied to young peopleinvolved in offending or anti-socialbehaviour. Thought to have originatedin Glasgow it is often believed to be an acronym of 'non-educateddelinquents' or the abridged version of Edward attached to 'teddy-boys' (see www.chavscum. co. uk and www. urbandictionary.com/define).

7 `responsibilisation' of young people (Goldson 2002; Muncie 2004; Smith R 2003). Others view it as an opportunity to finally overcome the idea that `nothing works' and provide servicesto young people that can meet their needsthrough a much welcomed injection of funds and systematicworking practices,underpinned by a strong evidencebase (Newburn

2002; Burnett and Appleton 2004). Smith D (2003) believesthere is not enoughevidence at the moment to support any definitive commentsabout the operation and efficacy of youth justice service provision in the UK.

While the development of the youth justice system in Scotland has been influenced by these broader UK political and theoretical discourses, like the adult criminal justice system

(McIvor 2004; McNeill 2004), youth justice has largely remained free of the more punishmentbased approachesevident in England and Wales (Smith 2000a). Despite a few modifications, the Children's Hearings System set up in the early 1970s following the

Kilbrandon report (SHHD 1964) andthe 1968 Social Work (Scotland)Act, has remainedthe primary system for dealing with young people in need of care and protection and / or involved in offending behaviour. The Hearings Systemdiverts young people from formal court processingand ensuresthe best interest of the child is the foremost consideration.

However, it is in the processof undergoinga major review to ascertainif it still meets the needs of young people and the community in the 21stcentury (Scottish Executive 2005a;

Stevensonand Brotchie 2004). There are signs that the "punitive and politicised " (Goldson

2005a:37) youthjustice agendafrom Englandand Walesis beginningto encroachon Scottish policy.

Since the Youth Crime Review (Scottish Executive 2000) developmentsare being driven by the modernising agenda of the Scottish Parliament, which increasingly requires a more

8 focussed approach to young people involved in anti-social and offending behaviour, based on effective practice, accountability and partnerships (Scottish Executive 2002a). The challenge in Scotland may be to implement changes that are based on effective practice, while retaining young people at the centre of the proceedings and placing their welfare at the forefront. In this respect youth justice in Scotland is at an important interface. While a simplistic focus on just deserts and punishment may undermine the welfare principles on which the Scottish system is based (Whyte 2000), a focus on multi-agency partnerships does not necessarily imply a wholesale rejection of a welfare based approach towards delinquency management

(Pitts 2003; 2005).

Evidence regarding the effectivenessof the youth justice system in Scotland has been piecemeal(Murray 1998),although there is little evidencethat removal of most young people from the Court system has resulted in an increasein offending behaviour (Stone 1995). A recent review of a number of Scottish studiesby Buist (2004) was inconclusive about the overall efficacy of the Scottish approachto working with young people in trouble. The systematicevaluation of youth justice in Scotlandis now beginning to meet the Executive's modernising agenda.McNeill and Batchelor (2004) have suggestedthat with the localised nature of youth justice provision, evaluation should be individualised to identify the specific areasof work that may be effective. Following Scottish Executive direction and increased funding most local authoritiesnow have in place multi-agencystrategy teams and oneof their roles is to monitor the progressof youth justice teams in meeting the objectivesoutlined in the National Standardsfor Youth Justice(Scottish Executive2002a).

This thesis analyses progress in establishing, developing and consolidating a multi- professionalyouth justice team in local wider multi-agency arrangements.Examination of the

9 developments occurs in relation to the political and theoretical foundations of multi-agency working and the broadertheoretical discourse of youth justice provision. The thesis focuses on Connect,a multi-professionalteam, in Falkirk, in the central region of Scotland.Prior to local governmentreorganisation in 1996Falkirk Council cameunder the umbrellaof Central

Regional Council, who were responsiblefor the delivery of social work services.Present arrangements position Falkirk, Stirling and Clackmannanshire as three separate, fiscally independent councils, referred to as the Forth Valley. While the three councils are independentlymanaged, with separatesocial work services,in somecircumstances, like the

Youth Justice Strategy Group and the criminal justice social work consortium, they practice varying levels of collaborationunder the Forth Valley umbrella.2

Connectwas establishedin 2001 in responseto the Scottish Executive's(2000) Youth Crime

Review to complementthe well establishedBarnardo's Freagarrachproject (see Lobley at al

2001). While multi-professionalYouth Offending Teams were well establishedin England andWales, with legislation prescribingtheir composition,the Connectteam was quite unique in Scotland in the breadth of the professionalsbrought together in a social work managed team,outwith the children andfamilies practiceteam umbrella.

The Connect project was establishedat a time of tremendouschange in youth justice in

Scotland, and Falkirk, like other areaswas, and is, experiencinga substantial processof changein its delivery of youth justice services.A major challenge for the local partnership, under the guidanceof the Scottish Executive,was incorporating the `what works' evidence- basedapproach into practicein a Scottishsystem that had not previously been subjectto such rigorous working methods.This was in addition to increasingcollaboration betweenvarious

' The Forth Valley has one unitary health board and Central Scotlandpolice cover the samegeographical area.

10 agencies as part of `joined up' working. The Connect project was located at the transition point, for young people, from the Children's Hearings System to the Criminal Justice System.

As suchit was at the interfaceof many aspectsof youth justice policy in respectof the ages of the young people at the project, in relation to the implementationof more systematic practicesand in relation to the developmentof partnershipworking.

Interviews with a variety of stakeholders,document and databaseanalysis and observation provided a detailed account of what was both a challenging and rewarding period in the development of youth justice in Falkirk. The Scottish policy and practice perspective provided illuminating referencesto the professional ethos underpinning youth justice, and some important differencesto England and Wales where the professionalstatus of workers and a needs led approach for young people are increasingly being eroded (Burnett and

Appleton 2004; Crosset al 2003). The thesislocates Scottish policy in the wider international context through an examinationof policy andtheoretical developmentsthat, in the last fifteen years, has been increasingly guided by a set of principles under the auspicesof the United

Nations.

Chapter Two focuseson the evolution of youth justice over the 20thcentury as a separate discourseto that of the adultjustice system.It tracespolicy initiatives and legislative changes in the United Kingdom, with referenceto international developments,before concentrating on Scottish policy where,with its unique Children's HearingsSystem, Scotland has operated independentlyfrom the rest of the UK for over thirty years.

Chapter Threediscusses the developinggovernance of youthjustice and the move in the UK, over the last quarter of a century, towardsa corporatistand managerialistapproach to service

11 provision incorporating a `what works' agenda. These discourses have had a significant effect on the delivery of all welfare services, seeking to implement aspects of the market economy into the public sector and increasing the use of multi-agency strategies. There are implications for the professional and theoretical framework of youth justice (Pitts 2003;

Smith R 2003) as professional knowledge and understanding about the multiplicity of causes of youth crime is overtakenby a model based on containmentand prevention, underpinned by a desire for efficiency, effectivenessand economy. The link between the corporatist approachand increasein multi-agencyworking is discussedin relation to the evidence-based focus on offending behaviour, all of which are now combining, especially in England and

Wales, in the new governanceof youth crime. The emergenceof a similar approachin

Scotlandis highlighted by the evolving policy agenda.

A description of youth justice provision in the Falkirk Council area is provided in Chapter

Four. This details the strategicand operationalcontext in which the researchwas undertaken, before providing an accountof the specific servicesprovided by the Connectproject. A less detailed portrayal of the Freagarrachproject locates Connect, Freagarrachand the Youth

Justice Referral Group as the main providers of `specialist' youth justice provision in the

Falkirk area.

Methodology and methodologicalissues are discussedin Chapter Five. The benefits of case study research,with elementsof action research,are highlighted in relation to this study.

Challengespresented in undertaking the research relate to the theoretical discourse of investigation in the social sciencesand understandingof effectivenessin criminal justice and social work (Cheethamet al 1992; Audit Scotland 2001). Potential methodological issues with regard to the professional background of the researcherand the political aspectsof

12 research in criminal justice (Noaks and Wincup 2004) are examined. The student researcher's background was especially pertinent in a research project where the study involved spending a large amount of time based in a practice team. The distinction between researcher, professionaland team memberis discussedin relation to this, where there is a potential for blurring of roles, but alsoof enrichingthe researchexperience.

Chapter Six examines the perceptions of those professionals working in the youth justice system in Falkirk about the present and future, national and local, policy directions. The perceptionsof these workers is important in understandingthe historical and contemporary approachesto youth justice in Scotland,which havebeen predicated to date on a concern for the welfare of the young people, rather than with a focus on the offence. It is these professionalswho will be chargedwith implementingemerging policy andguidelines.

Chapter Seven focuses on the perceptions of a range of stakeholdersabout the specific services delivered by Connect. While the main focus of the research is on the multi- professionalteam of Connect,reference is alsomade to Freagarrach,as both of theseprojects are seen as providing the majority of services to young people involved in offending behaviour in Falkirk (Falkirk Council 2003). A new common referral system through the

Youth Justice Referral Group brought the Connect and Freagarrachprojects closer in an inter-agencypartnership attempting to implement an evidence-basedagenda and improve multi-agencynetworks.

ChapterEight focuseson the experiencesthat youth justice professionalshave encountered in

Falkirk regarding multi-agency aspectsof service delivery. The Scottish context, where partnerships are less formal, is particularly important with regards to the benefits and

13 disadvantages of joined up working and likely to result in different experiences to youth justice professionalsin Englandand Wales. Practical, theoretical,personal and group issues, with particular referenceto communication/ information sharingand casemanagement, are discussedin relation to workers' perceptionsof the multi-agencyarrangements.

While the focus of this research is a multi-professional team in one area of Scotland the

issues raised are pertinent to the national debate as the Scottish Executive is presently

engagedin the `modernisation'process for youth justice. The in depth casestudy provides a

clarity about the issuesfacing one local authority, a methodthat addressesconcerns about the

increasingfocus on aggregatedresearch evidence as the benchmarkfor identifying effective

practice(McNeill and Batchelor 2004; Batemanand Pitts 2005). In the complex relationship

between research and policy (Clarke 2001) the findings in this thesis can inform future

developmentsand promote a focus on the processesand development of servicesas a positive

changefrom a narrow focus on outcomes.They provide a clear descriptionof the challenges

local authoritieswill face as the speedof changeincreases, and also the challengesfront line

professionals may encounter as a corporatist, managerial agenda potentially sidelines

professional knowledge regarding the aetiology and efficacy of approachesto deal with

offending by young people.

14 CHAPTER TWO

YOUTH JUSTICE POLICY

Following details of estimated youth offending in Scotland this chapter discusses the conceptualframeworks that have beenhistorically adoptedto describeyouth justice systems.

frameworks have been While these historically located around a welfare - justice dichotomy,

the historical and international discussion of youth justice developments, especially the human rights agenda, highlights the over simplicity of such a binary distinction. Discussion

of international youth justice statutes through the 20th and into the 21Stcentury places present

Scottishpolicy in historical andcontemporary context. An accountof the developmentof the

ScottishChildren's HearingsSystem highlights how Scotlandhas developeddifferently from most jurisdictions, retaining an emphasison a welfare approachwhere children involved in

offending behaviourare dealt with underthe samesystem as children at risk of harm.

The issue of youth crime is one that is presently in the public arena through extensive

government,media and public exposure(McIvor 2005; Whyte 2003a). The media exposure

about crime in general increasesanxieties that contemporary society is plagued by the

problem, eventhough there is a mismatchbetween the actualreporting and underlying crime

rates (Garside 2003). There is an increasing cultural criminological focus examining the

effect this attentionhas on the realities andperceptions of crime, as the public's fear of being

victims of crime can be more disabling than the realities of becominga victim (Ferrell 2003).

Whateverthe realities of youth crime, `young offenders' and `Neds' are the new folk devils

(Cohen 1973) in the eyes of much of the media (see Barnes2004) and have receivedmuch

attention in the Scottish parliament (BBC 2003). Goldson (2005b), however, suggeststhat

15 when compared to white collar, organised and corporate crime (crimes of the powerful), offending by young people pales into criminological insignificance.

Before examining the development of youth justice provision the incidence of crime attributed to young people in Scotlandwill be discussed,as it is recognisedthat "informed and effectivepolicy requires a clear understandingof the scope of the problem it seeksto address " (Garside 2004: 8).

INCIDENCE OF YOUTH CRIME IN SCOTLAND

"There is a general perception, sometimescorrect and sometimesunjustified, that

juvenile offendingrates are increasing constantlyand significantly, and that ever more

serious and violent crimes are being committed by ever younger children" (UNICEF

1998: 6)

Elucidating the extent andnature of youth crime and incidenceof offending by young people, real or imagined,is not straightforward.Either much of the crime committedby young people goes unreported (Whyte 1998), or there is a degree of bias in official statistics over

emphasisingthe crimes of the young (Coleman and Moynihan 1996). Such confusion is reflected in the use of statistics,which gatheredin the presentway in the United Kingdom

refer to crime as if it were an easily identifiable and categorisedfacet of behaviour,when in

fact it ignores certain areasof crime, like white collar crime (Garside2004), and there are

dark figures of unrecordedcrime (Colemanand Moynihan 1996).

16 Despite some knowledge, the `true facts' of offending by young people, indeed any group, may be unknowable, mainly due to the way crime is estimated and recorded and the inability of the statistics to provide a definitive picture (Muncie 1999). In the United Kingdom the major sourcesof crime data are providedby victim surveysand recordedstatistics published by the Home Office `Criminal Statistics' for England and Wales, and in Scotland by the

ScottishExecutive's `RecordedCrime in Scotland'. Thesepublications provide a snapshotof crime relating to a variety of data on offences, those who commit them and the victims.

Officially recordedstatistics are often describedas partial and socially constructedbecause

they depend largely on crimes reported to the police and whether the police actually record an 3 incident as a crime (Colemanand Moynihan 1996; Muncie 1999). Victim surveysinclude

data that may not havebeen reported to the police. Often, estimatesregarding the incidence of crime vary betweenthe two datasetsand in Englandand Wales efforts are being madeto combine the two to provide more accurateinformation. It is importantwhen using the data to take accountof the reasonsthey were producedand the purposeto which they will be put, as

different datasetsare used to illuminate different trends at different times (Coleman and

Moynihan 1996).

The statisticsreveal little aboutwider aspectsof crime and its perpetrators,beyond those who

are caughtand included in the statistics(Garside 2004). Little, or no, information is provided

about the situation in which the crime was committed, and information about the

circumstancesof the offender is limited to thoseapprehended. It hasalso been suggestedthat

only 50% of what the public perceiveof as a crime is reportedto the police (Audit Scotland

2002). The 2003 Scottish Crime Survey indicated that only 49% of `incidents' were reported

3A recentexample in Scotlandof changesin police recordingpractices was the decisionby thepolice in Central region to record incidences of vandalismas 'crime' rather than 'for information' (ScottishExecutive 2004a).

17 to the police (McVie et al 2004), often becausethe incident was consideredtoo trivial or it was thoughtthe police could not take any action(Scottish Executive2002b).

Irrespectiveof the accuracyof official statistics,media, political and public representations can lead to the conclusion that crime in general,and by young peoplein particular, has been rising inexorably year after year. With regardsto West Europeancountries there appearsto have been a general increase in offending by young people until the late 1980s, following which there was a levelling off in the overall levels of offending (Estrada 1999; 2001). There seems to have been a small increase in the number of young people committing more serious offences, including those involving violence (Estrada 2001). In England and Wales there appearsto havebeen a fall in youth offending rates in recentyears (Pitts and Bateman2005).

For Scotland the most recent official crime figures indicate that in 2003/04 the number of crimes recorded by the police stood at 406,979, the lowest recorded level for twenty five years(Scottish Executive2004a), suggesting that in Scotlandcrime rateshave fallen in recent years (McIvor 2005). The number of offences recordedwas 586,150, an increaseof 15% on

2002, although the major increasewas in speedingoffences (Scottish Executive 2004a).4 A total of 130,606persons had a charge proven against them in Scottish courts in 20035, of whom 27,836 (21.3%) were under 21 years of age. Of those under 21 years of age, 112

(0.4%) were under the age of 16.6Of the 10,030individuals under 21 who had at least one chargeproved 70% had only one conviction, while nearly 3% had more than five convictions in 2003 (Scottish Executive2005b).

I Crimesand offencesrefer to the differencein seriousnesswith crimesrelating to the moreserious. The classificationof crimesand offencesis detailedin ScottishExecutive (2004a). Figuresfor personswith a chargeproven count the number of occasionson which a personis convicted,it is not separateindividuals. 6Both the numbers of under16 and under 21 year olds was down slightly on 2002 (Scottish Executive 2004b).

18 In terms of outcomes in 2003, of the 27,836 persons under the age of 21 convicted in the courts there were 3412 custodial sentences. Twenty-six young people under the age of 16 were sent to custody, although it is not clear whether they were in a prison or secureunit.

4529 persons (ten under 16 years old) were given community sentences(probation and community service), 16039 (sixteen under 16 year olds) fines and 3856 other penalties

(Scottish Executive 2005b). Approximately 2224 probation orders were made on young peopleunder the ageof 21 in 2002-2003,with 699 of thesemade on 16 and 17 year olds. For community service orders the corresponding figures are 2045 and 503 (Scottish Executive

2003a).7

The estimatesof the proportionof crime committedby young peoplevary tremendouslywith

Audit Scotland (2001) suggesting anywhere between 40% and 66%, based on their interpretationof past Scottish statistics.The 2000 Scottish Crime Surveyindicated that 34% of young people admittedto committing an offence in the previous year (Scottish Executive

2002b). A recent ScottishExecutive report (DTZ Pieda Consulting 2005) estimatedthat 43% of all crimes in Scotland were attributable to young people under the age of 21. Of these,

49% were ascribedto 18-21 year olds, approximately 33% were attributedto thoseunder 15 years old, with the remaindercredited to 16 and 17 year olds. The report indicatedthat most youth offending was theft related with young people also being responsible for higher proportions of fire-raising, vandalismand possessingoffensive weapons.In absolutefigures, though, the number of children under 16 years of age reported to the Children's Hearings

System representsless than 1.6% of the Scottish population of that age group (Scottish

Children's ReporterAdministration - SCRA - 2003a)

7 Statisticsfrom differentyears are produced here because data from varioussources is publishedat differenttimes. The 2003-04 social workstatistics do notbreak down orders by age.

19 Research suggests that a small number of young people who offend are responsible for a large amount of crime (Asquith et al 1996; Audit Scotland 2002). Farrington (1996) found that about 5% of males progressto becomepersistent or serious offendersand may account for half of all known offending. For 2003-2004the PA Consulting Group (2004) provided a baseline report for the Scottish Executive that attempted to provide an indication of the numbers of young people identified as persistent offenders who were referred to the 8 Children's Reporter. This report indicatedthat 16,470children were referredto the Reporter on offence grounds, with a total number of offence based referrals of 34,266. It was estimated that the number of persistentyoung offenders in Scotland was 1,201 triggering a total of

11,128 referrals to the Reporter, indicating that those young people identified as persistent offendersaccounted for nearly a third of all offence referrals.This number represented0.2% of the 8-16 year olds population acrossScotland. Correspondingfigures for young people over the ageof 16 are not provided.

These figures may provide some indication of the level of offending by young people in

Scotland but, as describedabove, they cannot provide a full or clear picture. The various definitions of a `youngperson' in Scotland do not help to clarify the situation.The statistical bulletins published by the Scottish Executive tend to refer to under 21 year olds, the review of Scotland's child protection systemreferred to a young offender as those aged 16-21 years old (Scottish Executive2002c) andthe Audit Scotland(2002) report on youth crime referred to young peoplebetween the agesof 8 and 21. The legal definition of a child also varies (see page 54). While this thesis includes young people in the 8 to 18 age group, the various researchand data presentedhere use various definitions and a definitive answer for the level

Persistentoffender is defined as a young personwith five episodesof offending in a six month period. This definition is usedthroughout this thesis.Garside (2004) discusses the controversialtopic and definition of persistence.

20 of offending by young people is not usually forthcoming because age groups in different 9 publications are often not identified and vary between 8 to 21 years.

Taking accountof available figures, there is no clear evidence,and what there is is far from conclusive, about any increasein offending by young people in Scotland (Audit Scotland

2001). Indeed offending by young peopleis likely to be transitory (Jamiesonet al 1999) and

"most offences by children and young people are less serious offences which need not

necessarily warrant punitive or indeed formal intervention" (Asquith 1998: 242). A SCRA

report in 2002 (SCRA 2002) indicated that 55% of all referrals were for one offence, and the

children were not referred again. This would appearto concur with international experience

pointing generallyto the episodic natureof juvenile delinquency(Dunkel 1996) andthe fact

that most young people who offend stop without formal intervention (Whyte 1998). These

figures may suggestthat public, political and media attention on youth crime is out of all

proportion to the actualincidence.

The challenge for policy may be to deal effectively with those young people who become

persistentoffenders and who may commit a large proportion of offences (Audit Scotland

2002). In Scotlandthis relatesto just over 1000 young people (PA Consulting Group 2004),

who are the focus of policy to reduce this figure by 10% by 2006 (Scottish Executive

2002a).1° The problem for Scottish,and indeedany, policy is how to reconcilethe competing

best interests,welfare and rights of the child with that of victims and the requirementsof a

judicial processto provide satisfactory outcomesto victims and the wider society (Asquith

and Docherty 1999; Whyte 2000). This focus on the welfare of the young person and of the

Ages 8-18 representthe ageof criminal responsibility in Scotlandto the upperage limit for referral to Connectand Freagarrach 10A ScottishExecutive and SCRA (2005) report indicates a 5% risein thenumber of youngpeople identified as persistent since 2004.

21 need for justice has been a central concept in youth justice discourse since the beginning of the twentiethcentury.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS FOR YOUTH JUSTICE

(The welfare-justice debate)

The justice-welfare dichotomy is onethat is often referredto in the literature describingyouth justice jurisdictions. Historically it hasbeen customaryto describemodels as eitherjustice or welfare when making a distinction about the punitiveness,or otherwise, of jurisdictions

(Hallet 2000; Hallet & Hazel 1998). The justice-welfare debate refers to which of the two theoretical principles underpins youth justice systems,although it is recognisedthat most systemscombine elements of both philosophies(Waterhouse and McGhee 2005).

A welfare model refers to a systemwhere the focus is on the welfare of the young person and the interests of the child are paramount, rather than punishment for the crime. There is usually an informality about the procedures,a lack of due processand indeterminatelengths of interventions where the young person can remain under supervision until the

`rehabilitation' is complete (Bala and Bromwich 2002). The introduction of separateyouth justice systems in each country ensured that the welfare principle was paramount at the beginningof the 20thcentury.

During the latter part of the 20thcentury the welfare model was increasingly criticised, and public concernabout youth crime resulted in a call for a morejustice basedapproach to youth crime (Bala and Bromwich 2002). The paternalism, violation of rights and potential discriminatory effects of a welfare approachwere highlighted (Muncie 2004). It was also

22 suggested that welfare approachesresulted in young people receiving disproportionate levels of intervention in relation to the gravity of any alleged offences (Goldson 2005a).

Consequently, in many juvenile justice systems there was increasingly a move from welfare, needs oriented, non-criminal, nonjudicial processes, towards a greater emphasis on legal rights, responsibility, due process,`just deserts' (Hallett & Hazel 1998; Whyte 2000) and a focus on punishment and accountability (Bala and Bromwich 2002), a justice model. "

Many countries have attempted to combine justice and welfare through a two pronged approach,where sanctionsare increasedfor serious offenderswhile being decreasedfor less seriousoffences (Newburn 2002).This `bifurcation' (Bottoms 1977)policy has beenevident for a number of years in western countries and allows for a more punitive approachwith young people who are identified as more serious or persistentoffenders, while a welfare based approachdeals with those assessedas being of less risk. In reality this has been problematic becausethe two systemsare fundamentally irreconcilable and any attempt at a synthesisusually results in legal rights being reduced and the educative rehabilitation idea being diminished (Walgrave 1996). It has lead to a fragmentedand contradictory system of justice, characterisedby conflict, ambiguity and compromise(Crawford 2001; Muncie and

Hughes2002).

The separationof young peoplewho offend from those in need of care and protection is also a corollary of the justice / welfare debate,so that the two groups are dealt with by different systems(Hallett 2000). Whyte (2000) assertsthat many countries have virtually abandoned child-orientedpractices in favour of law and order responsesas politicians are under pressure to be tough on crime. Scotland is seenas one of the few countriesbucking this trend because

It Asquith (2002) and Muncie (2004)provide a comprehensivedebate about the theoretical andmoral argumentssurrounding the welfare - justice debate.

23 the Children's Hearings System, regardless of the reason for referral, deals with almost all young people up until the age of 16. The Scottish system has, from the early 1970s, been seen as a welfare approach (Hallet & Hazel 1998: Asquith and Docherty 1999; Hallet 2000).

However, others view the Scottish system as being based more closely on a social education or community model, where the welfare of the young person is balanced with the needs of the wider community, rendering the welfare justice distinction unhelpful (Whyte 1998; 2000;

Parsloe 1978). Whyte (2000), has also suggested that the welfare justice classification may also fail to take into account alternative systems, or the validity of those systems using various methods of intervention (Whyte 2000).

Increasinglyit is acknowledgedthat the welfarejustice distinction is diminishing as a clear

frameworkbecause:

"Youth justice has evolved into a complex patchwork of processes and disposals,

drawing on welfare, justice, retribution, rehabilitation, treatment, punishment, 12 prevention and diversion. " (Muncie 2004: 266)

It is also recognisedthat a narrow justice v welfare debate is too simplistic and unhelpful

becauseof the inherent conflict apparentin systemsthat attempt to identify themselveswith

both philosophies(Muncie 2004; Muncie and Hughes 2002; Whyte 2000). Walgrave (1996)

also suggestsneither have been fully realisedin practice,viewing welfare as a "humane,but

naive dream" andpunishment a "retributive systemof revenge"

'2 Diversion refers to procedures"designed to avoid thestigma of formal adult-style court processingand incarceration" (Muncie et al 2002:255).

24 Muncie and Hughes (2002: 1) suggest the contemporary governance of youth crime influenced by an increasein the responsibilisationof children, the changing views on the social constructionof childhood and the internationalrights agendafurther erode the justice- welfare binary, concluding that this distinction is now a `moribund' debate. Alder and

Wundersitz(1994) prefer its useas a conceptualtool, and Bala and Bromwich (2002) suggest that placing systemson a continuum that varies over time in responseto changing politics and demographics,rather than being classified as one or the other, may be the most appropriateway of contextualisingdifferent countriesand jurisdictions.

Pratt (1989) suggeststhat there is now an emergenceof a `third model' of youth justice adopting a corporatist agenda(see Chapter Three), focusing on the containmentof crime through centralisation of policy, a focus on programmes and the introduction of various professional,voluntary and independentagencies. This model of youthjustice is encapsulated by the conceptof restorativejustice as a viable alternative and successorto the traditional retribution versusrehabilitation models(Walgrave 1996;O'Connor et a! 2002).

"Restorative justice is a process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence

resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offenceand its implications

for thefuture" (Prison Fellowship International2000: 1).

Although restorativejustice has its roots in the rituals of indigenous populations settling disputes in sentencingcircles (Van Wormer 2002), it has been a relatively new initiative in internationalpolicy responsesto criminal justice where there has been a substantialgrowth in restorative provision over the past twenty to thirty years (Miers 2001). There is an ever increasing international literature categorising its origins, practice and efficacy, although

25 Morris (2002) believes its relative infancy in the criminal justice fields requires more time to translateits traditional valuesinto modempractice. Morris also suggeststhere needsto be an increase in evaluation of interventions claiming to be based on restorative justice principles to further inform the debate.

Marshall (1999) credits Zehr (1990) as the first person to create a fully integrated and comprehensivemodel of restorativejustice representedas an `alternativejustice paradigm' which has now been widely adopted. This resurgenceof interest in restorativejustice in recent yearshas been seenas a responseto the perceivedineffectiveness and high cost of the conventionaljustice systems,in addition to the failure to hold offendersaccountable. Instead of viewing offending as a violation of the state,restorative justice directly involves thosewho aremost affected;victims, offendersand communities(Morris 2002).13

Marshall (1999) views the primary objectivesof restorativejustice as:

Attending to the needsof the victim

Preventingreoffending by reintegratingthe offenderback into the community

Enabling offendersto assumeresponsibility for their actions

Recreatinga working communitysupporting rehabilitation of offendersand victims

Providing a meansof avoiding costsand delaysin the justice system

However, restorativejustice is not a unified concept (Miers 2001) and includes various approachesthat include victim offender mediation, conferencing,sentencing circles, victim

" Victims,offenders and communities are not necessarilydistinct. MVA (2002)found that 65% of youngpeople who had committed an offencehad also been victims.

26 assistance, ex-offender assistance,restitution and community service. 14This breadth of the processesand programmesclaimed to be restorativejustice may also be one of the major criticisms. It may result in it being all things to everybody,which can concealdifferences in aim and practice(Marshall 1999) as the literature contains much confusionand imprecision, duein part to the diversenature of the processeslabelled as restorative(Morris 2002).

The Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) developed in Australia, following

Braithwaite (1989), have been some of the most extensiveevaluations of restorativejustice models. Initial findings suggestedthat RISE was beneficial for the different partiesinvolved in the conferences(Sherman and Strang 1997; Strang and Sherman1997), although the final report (Shermanet a12000)suggested that in terms of reoffending ratesit appearsto be only beneficial for thoseinvolved in more seriousoffences of violence.

Following the introduction of referral orders in the Youth Justiceand Criminal EvidenceAct

(1999) restorative justice models were formally legislated for in England and Wales for young people who offend. There are some indications that although widely acceptedas a positive move, the referral orders exhibit evidenceof net widening as 50% of those young people referredcould have been dealt with in pre-court diversion procedures(Youth Justice

Board 2003).15 Net widening was one of the criticisms of restorativejustice identified by

Morris (2002). Other criticisms included the erosion of legal rights, trivialising crime, a failure to `restore' victims andoffenders, a failure to bring real changeand reduce recidivism, discriminatory outcomes, and the extension of police powers. It has also been said that

14Miers (2001) and Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention(2001) provide further examplesand explanations of various restorativeapproaches. Is "Net-wideningis the drawing of young peopleinto the criminal justice systemon thebasis of new laws, or new interpretation of existing laws " (NCH Scotland2004: 12)

27 restorative justice does not address power imbalances, encourages vigilantes and lacks legitimacy as it fails to provide justice.

In Scotland the use of restorativejustice techniquesremains at an early stage,although the

Scottish Executive are showing considerableinterest in its use. The first in a series of documentsto provide a guide to the principles and best practice for restorativejustice in the

Children's HearingsSystem has recently been published (Scottish Executive2005c). While

Brooks (2005) suggeststhat the implementationof restorativejustice approachesis warranted as a diversionary approach, Whyte (2002) suggests proceeding with caution because of the mixed resultsregarding its efficacy.

While viewed as a successorto the welfare v justice debate(Walgrave 1996; O'Connor et al.

2002), restorativejustice is also viewed as a further step towards the responsibilisationof children, involving various agencies in work that addressesboth welfare issues in the community while simultaneously holding the young person accountable for their actions

(Muncie and Hughes 2002; Muncie 2004). Muncie and Hughes (2002) propose that the emerging positive rights agendafor young people should develop the debate from that of

labelling children as being in need of either care or control, to challenging the established

processing of children and involving them in decisions about their future. Scraton and

Haydon (2002) highlight the need for a rights based agendawithin a range of welfare

focussed multi-agency interventions where young people have equal rights regarding

decisions made about them. Such a positive rights based approach accentuates the

complexities of describing youth justice as a welfare-justice dichotomy and highlights the

need for a system that can adequatelyaddress the complex nature of young people's lives

while including them more fully in decisionmaking.

?R A narrow welfare / justice conceptualisationmay alsopropagate a belief that an international consensusexists on methodsfor addressingthe issueof young peoplewho offend. In practice

"every country has botchedtogether its own system." (Walgrave 1996:194) and any apparent homogeneityof systemsacross the westernworld masks the fact that they differ. Historical developmentsin Britain also suggesta more complicatedconceptualisation that has embraced many aspects of a discourse that includes the social construction of childhood, wider social changes(eg industrialisation)and a rights agendafor children.

HISTORICAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY DEVELOPMENTS

International Rights

It has been suggestedthat since the 1980s there has been a `revolution in juvenile justice'

(Fottrell 2000) as a result of an international framework for justice systemsdealing with young offenders. Four major international instrumentsare of particular significance with

respectto how countriesdeal with youth justice issues(UNICEF 1998),which Fottrell (2000)

suggestsplaces the issue of young peoplewho offend at the centreof a human rights agenda.

Thesefour instrumentsinclude:

" The United Nations Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (1985) (Beijing

Rules)

" The United Nations Conventionon the Rights of the Child (1989)

9 The United Nations Rules for the Protectionof JuvenilesDeprived of their Liberty (1990)

29 " The United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (1990)

(Riyadh Guidelines)

Additionally the 1990 United Nations StandardMinimum Rules for Non-custodialMeasures

(Tokyo Rules) emphasisethe need to make the greatestpossible use of alternativeto custody

sentencesfor any ageof offender. Most notable of theseinternational instruments is the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child, which contains guiding principles for any youth justice system and is the only one ratified in law. All states in the world have now ratified the

convention except the United States and Somalia (Fottrell 2000) although, as seen by the

regular reports of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, countries are far from 16 implementingall of the recommendationsand principles.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child have identified a number of principles, four of

which (2,3,6 and 12) are defined as pivotal (Hammarberg 1995). Article 2 refers to the

principle that no child shall be discriminated against, or punished, as a result of their

background, circumstancesor opinions. Article 6 covers the right to life, survival and

development.Article 12 containsthe right of the child to be heard at any proceedings,either

personally or by a representative.The fundamentalprinciple is perhaps3.1 where the child's

best interest is the foremostconsideration:

"In all actions concerning children, whether taken by public or private social welfare

institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best

interestsof the child shall be a primary consideration."

16See the 31" session of theCommittee on the Rightsof theChild (UNCRC 2002) regarding the State Report for GreatBritain

30 Despite the UN focus on the rights of children, UNICEF (1998) have stated that policy and practice relating to young people who offend is among the areas most criticised by the

Committee on the Rights of the Child. Concern about the rights of children involved in criminal justice systemsis growingworldwide and it is describedas:

"Somewhatparadoxical that the rights, norms and principles involved are regularly

ignored and seriously violated virtually throughout the world, on a scale that is

probably unmatched in the field of civil rights implementation. " (UNICEF 1998:2)

Many countrieshave reviewed their systemsto comply with the UN Conventions,although

Whyte (2000) believes the systems developed are not underpinned by an international consensusbut are more an indication of the assumptionsabout young people held by individual states.This assumptionis highlighted in the various agesof criminal responsibility adoptedin different countries,ranging from 7 yearsto 18 years,and in the myriad definitions of who is considereda child." These assumptionsalso reflect those of earlier generations regarding young people and crime. The UN Conventionsare the latest attemptto provide for specific rights and needs of young people involved in offending behaviour. Perhaps the difference today is that increasedcommunication and technology has enabledan international rights agendato be developed.

Historical (UK) conceptsof youth crime

Historical narratives of crime indicate that young people have been involved in criminal activity for as long as records have been maintained on the subject (Magarey 2002; May

"UNICEF (1998)details ages of criminalresponsibility in all thesignatories to theconvention.

31 2002; Muncie 2004). Commentators acknowledge that youth justice, as a separate concept, did not enter into the consciousnessof the public and professionals until the mid 19thcentury, although its exact origins as a separatediscourse remain a matter of debate(Muncie 2004;

Omaji 2003; Parsloe 1978).Based on Roman Law and the teachingsof the Church, Walker

(1983) suggeststhat the recognition that young peoplehad to have elementsof reasoningin their behaviour,that children shouldknow good from evil, to be tried for offending behaviour datesback at leastto the 12thand 13`h centuries. This elementof reasoningwas assumedto be at the age of 7, althoughWalker identifies that in Europe a more `welfare' approachcame to the fore becauseof the use of the age of 14 as the benchmark,the age a child reachedfull pubertyunder RomanLaw.

The criminal justice system in the UK was perceivedto be probably the most severein its history at the beginning of the 19thcentury, with conviction for over two hundred offences punishableby a death sentence(Parsloe 1978; Morris and Giller 1987).Children (over the age of 7) were treated as adults and could be expectedto receive all forms of punishment including the death penalty, transportation and imprisonment (O'Connor et al 2002; May

2002; Morris and Giller 1987).Parsloe (1978) suggeststhat the mitigating factor for youth was that juries were often reluctant to convict children where the penalty was death or transportation,a suggestioncontested by Morris and Giller (1987) who contend that adults were also found not guilty and subjectto pardons.

The recognition that children and young people had different needsto adults began to take effect in the early 19thcentury. In 1806 the Philanthropic Society established`after care' facilities for 12 to 19 year olds sentencedto prison, a separateprison ship was provided for young people in 1823 and the first prison facility for young peoplewas built in 1838 (Morris

32 and Giller 1987).The Industrial SchoolsAct (1854 Scotlandand 1857 England)provided, in conjunction with Poor Law, facilities for children in needwith a recognition that poor social conditionswas linked to crime. By the endof the 19thcentury sometowns had separatecourts for young people, which were eventually legislated for nationally in the 1908 Children Act

(seebelow).

This recognition of the conceptof young peoplewho offend having different needsto adults has been describedas the `crowning achievement'of the 19'hcentury philanthropists(Rush

2002). It cameat a time when therewas an increasein knowledgeabout crime, as a result of the `scientific' approachesbeginning to take hold in the social sciences (May 2002), especiallythe use of statisticsrelating to offending (Morris and Giller 1987).It hasalso been linked to the wider social upheaval and transformations regarding industrial capitalism, growth of factory production and the increasingurbanisation of the population (Herz 1996;

Muncie 2004; Parsloe 1978; Walgrave and Mehlbye 1998). Parsloe (1978) suggeststhat in the USA especially the developmentof youth justice can be more closely linked with the growth of towns. The emergenceof youth crime as a separatediscourse has also been attributed to the social construction of childhood over the same period (Hendrick 2002;

Morris and Giller 1987), where competing constructionsof childhood from the `romantic child' of the 18thcentury to the `psychologicalchild' and `welfare child' of the 20thcentury have influenced policy and practice. Perhaps the rights of the child will be the defining constructionof the 2 1s`century.

Morris and Giller (1987) question the motivations of the philanthropists in terms of the humanitarianismof their work. They proposethat the reforms, while welcomed, underlined traditional family life and parental authority and reinforced the status quo in the new

33 industrial order, being implicitly or explicitly coercive. However, they also suggest humanitarianism and coercion are often mutually supportive, being two sides of the same

coin. Thesethoughts about the 19thcentury position are reflected in the contemporarydebate

about welfare andjustice, care and control, the difficulty of identifying systemsin terms of one or the other and the potential coercivenessof a welfare system.

Developing the historical context further the next section identifies international

developmentsduring the last century. It briefly describesvarious English speaking and

Europeanjurisdictions that haveoften beencharacterised as fluctuating betweenwelfare and

justice, care andcontrol. The discussionfurther helps to place the presentScottish systemin

its historical and contemporarycontext. 18

International 20`hcentury 'statute' developments

Illinois USA introducedthe world's first court to deal specifically with young people who

offend in 1899, followed by the remainderof the country with state-by-stateintroductions of juvenile justice systems.This was followed shortly afterwardsby Canada,New Zealandand

Australia where specific youth justice systems,following a broadly welfare model, were

introducedat the beginningof the 20thcentury.

In 1967 in the USA the Gault ruling at the SupremeCourt found that the existing system for

dealing with young children who offended was unconstitutional.The systemhad invoked the

legal doctrine of `parenspatriae', where the state intervenedto be the `parent' of a child to

provide the appropriateguidance and discipline. Following the ruling juvenile courts were

11Bala et al (2002)and Omaji (2003) provide comprehensive descriptions of internationaljurisdictions.

34 introducedto give children the same rights as those afforded adults, except trial by jury

(Loflin 1995).The 1970sand 1980sheralded a worldwide movementtowards an increasein

due processand legal rights for children, which coincided with an increasingconcern about

the extent and natureof youth crime, and a shift from welfare and treatmentoriented policies

to punishment and accountability (Bala & Bromwich 2002).

Since 1990 in the USA the juvenile justice laws have been amended in most states to place

less of an emphasis on rehabilitation and more on strict sanctions and accountability

(Amnesty International 1999;Jenson et al 2001; Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency

Prevention- OJJDP - 1996a).Today in the USA juvenile justice policy stressespunishment

and control of young offenders(Jenson et al 2001). The fact that the USA is one of only two

countries not to have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child gives some

indication of presentpolicy for dealing with young peoplewho offend.

Canadianpolicy ensuresthat accountability,responsibility and meaningful consequencesare

to the fore (Departmentof JusticeCanada 2003). However, despite emphasison the justice

models in Canadaand the USA, there have been attemptsto run two parallel systems for

persistent and non-persistentoffenders. Some states in Canada have been utilising the

traditional healing and sanctioning practices of aboriginal peoples of North America -

sentencingcircles, often describedas peacemakingcircles (OJJDP 2001). The circles include

crime victims, offenders, family and friends of both, justice and social serviceprofessionals

and areexamples of restorativemodels of intervention.

New Zealand and Australia have exhibited less of a move towards a punitive approach,

although broad statementsabout an Australian system are difficult to make becauseof the

35 separate jurisdiction of each state. The 'back-to-justice' movement (Alder & Wundersitz

1994) beginning in the 1980's in Australia resultedin all stateshaving modified versions of the justice model but with extensive provision for diversion (O'Connor et al 2002). There was also an increasein the useof restorativejustice principles and family conferences(Alder

& Wundersitz 1994).

In New Zealand the present system was introduced following the introduction of the

Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act in 1989 to govern intervention with young people who are the victims of abuse or neglect and those who have been involved in offending behaviour (Maxwell & Morris 2002). The New Zealand system is one that is oft quoted regarding the restorativejustice approachto youth justice and Maxwell & Morris

(2002) describepolicy in New Zealandas one of diversion from prosecutionfor thoseyoung peoplewho are minor, or first time offenders.Young peoplewho offend can only be arrested, and thereforego to the youth court (even then only after a family group conference),when certain conditions are met and generally the vast majority of offences committed by young peopledo not result in arrest.

The English speaking countries of the USA, Canada,New Zealand and Australia share developmentalaspects of their youth justice systems that are similar to that followed by

England and Wales. Following the introduction of separatejuvenile justice systems the welfare model prevailed for a number of years before various concernsabout net widening and the need for due processprecipitated a move towards a more justice oriented approach.

The USA and England and Wales are today particularly associatedwith a punitive justice model (Bala and Bromwich 2002; Muncie 2004; Loflin 1995).In this respectEngland and

36 Wales are out of step with Europe, where a welfare oriented approach is more prevalent

(Muncie 2002).

European youth justice

Herz (1996) has distinguishedbetween three global models that havedeveloped to deal with youth offending and placed them in a European context. In the first model there is no specialisedjuvenile law or jurisdiction, and local social administrations,composed of lay people, make decisionsregarding the young people. Herz roughly equatesthe Scottish and

Scandinaviansystems to this `extrajudicial' model. The secondmodel comprisesof systems that deal with young peoplewho offend in the sameforum as thosein need of protection and assistance.The third model involves criminal courts for young peopledealing with offending behaviouralone.

Despite Herz's identification of thesethree models in Europe,Muncie (2002) views Europe as more readily identified with a welfare orientedapproach. While data comparisonin youth justice systemsbetween the UK and Europe is difficult (Buckland and Stevens2001; Muncie

2002),there are a numberof documentedinstances of moredecriminalising and decarcerative proceduresin Western Europe.Muncie (2002) cites Holland as a country where social crime prevention initiatives and a limit on the use of custody has helped to reduce levels of incarcerationfor youngpeople, although Buckland and Stevens(2001) suggestHolland in practicehas an early ageof transition to the adult systemat 16. Spain and Belgium are seen as having the strongestwelfare approaches.In Belgium interventions for young people are educative,rather than punitive, andit is not possibleto impose legal penaltieson those under

16 years of age; only measuresof protection, education and assistancecan be taken in

37 relation to this agegroup (Buckland and Stevens2001; Herz 1996).In Portugal there is no distinction betweenthose children under 16 in dangerand thoseoffending, and in 1982 a law came into effect giving priority to educationand treatment for 16-20 year olds who have offended (Herz 1996).

The Scandinaviancountries have developedsystems based on the extra judicial model, with attemptsto reducethe numbers of young people in detention (Buckland and Stevens2001;

Herz 1996;Muncie 2002). An interestingexample in Norway was the caseof a5 year old girl

murderedby two 6 year old boys, a casewhich mirrored the Bulger casein Liverpool in its 19 exceptionality. Unlike the public outcry and calls for retribution in Liverpool the boys in

Norway returned to school two weekslater, and there has not been the continuing media and public fascination with the Norwegian case(Herz 1996). While this example is of extreme cases, it highlights the general attitudes to young people who commit crimes in the two countries, and perhapssupports the views of Whyte (2000) regarding the development of

systemsmore in line with societal attitudesto young people than an international consensus.

It is likely that approachesand attitudesto youth justice can only be understoodwhen taking

into account the wider demographic,social, political and economic circumstancesof each

country (Bala et al 2002; Buckland and Stevens2001).

On the whole, Muncie (2002) suggeststhat Europe has a more welfare oriented approachto

youthjustice becausegovenunents have been more willing to implementthe UN Convention

on the Rights of the Child and take on board recommendationsfor youth justice by the

Council of Europe (Lahalle 1996; Merigeau 1996). However, Walgrave and Mehblbye

19James Bulger was a4 year old boy killed by two 10 yea old boys in Liverpool in 1993.I'lie caseattracted substantial international media interestdue to the circumstancesof the crime and the way in which theperpetrators ware then tried in the adult court.

38 (1998) believe the variety in age categoriesand judicial systemsconfuses the issue greatly

andreiterate again that it is not as straightforwardas ajustice / welfare split.

The historical and contemporarydiscussion of youth justice provision servesto place the present British and Scottish responsesin a wider context although it is recognised that comparing and / or transferring policies from one jurisdiction to another (Muncie 2002)

through 'criminological tourism' (Smith R 2003), may be difficult. Differences in legal

systems,data collection, conceptsand terminology, meanthat comparisonsbetween countries

haveto be treatedwith caution (Bala & Bromwich 2002). Such caution means,in effect, that there is no consensusabout the most appropriateresponse to offending behaviour by young people (UNICEF 1998). However recent policy developmentsin the UK, especially the

increaseof restorativejustice as mentioned above, have not occurredin isolation.

UK policy developments

As in other westernjurisdictions changing policy in England and Wales at the beginning of the 20'h century introduced a separatesystem of juvenile courts where children could be treateddifferently to adults. The 1908 Children Act was describedby Murray (1988) as one of the most significant ever policy changesin Britain relating to youth justice. The act

allowedfor all offences,except murder, committed by childrenaged 7 to 15years to be dealt

with in thejuvenile court.While this wasseen as important,children did not alwaysreceive

special considerationas there were no specific officials to sit in the courts and they

functionedalong the swneprocedures as an adult court (Morris and Giller 1987).

39 The Molony Committee,the first review of the youth justice system,recommended in 1927 that the juvenile courts should be conducted by justices with specific knowledge and experienceof juvenile issues (in Scotland the 1928 Morton Committee provided similar recommendations).These recommendations were enactedin the 1932 Children and Young

Persons(Scotland) Act and the 1933 Children and Young PersonsAct, which introducedthe conceptof welfare provision by placing a duty on magistratesto give concernto the welfare of children coming before the courts.These Acts also allowed children up to the ageof 16 to be dealt with by the juvenile courts where the welfare of the child was a major focus. The

1932 Act also set the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland to 8 years which remains

today as one of the youngestamongst western countries.

As social reforms continuedover the ensuingyears, with an emphasison children, the Clyde

Committeein Scotland and the Curtis Committeein England led to the 1948 Children Act

which createdlocal authority children's departmentsto work with young peoplewho were in

trouble or neglected. In the same year the Criminal Justice Act in England and Wales

abolishedcorporal punishmentfor youngstersand introducedthe first of many restrictionson

the useof imprisomnentfor young peoplewho offend, including attendancecentres to restrict

their leisure time (Graham 1996).A concernto reduceimprisonment for young offendershas

been apparentin nearly all westernyouth justice systems,although its successis debatable

(Dunkel 1996),and recentlythere has been an increasein the numbersof youngpeople

incarceratedin Englandand Wales (Hagell 2005).

In the mid 1950s a steep rise in recorded crime saw offending become more of a major

political issue dm it had been in the past (Goddard 2003). The 1961 Criminal Justice Act

was followed by The Children and Young PersonsAct of 1963, which raised the age of

40 criminal responsibility from 8 to 10 yearsin Englandand Wales. Thesechanges were viewed as positive moves towards a welfare oriented system during the 1960s (Goldson 2005a;

Graham2002), culminating in the 1969 Children and Young PersonsAct, identified as the high point of welfarism (Newburn 2002). This welfare perspective delivering decriminalisation, diversion from formal processesand decarceration had its theoretical foundationsin the labelling theory of crime (Becker 1963; Lemert 1972) which suggested

that one of the factorsrelated to continuing youth crime was the labels that were attachedto

young peoplethrough their involvementwith the justice system.

The 1969 Act saw the developmentof intermediatetreatment (IT) as a measuresomewhere

between traditional home supervision,residential care and custody. There was substantial

investmentboth in Englandand Wales,where it was legislatedfor, and in Scotlandwhere

there was more of a discretionary approachto its use amongstsocial workers and it was

generally referred to as child care or social education(Robertson and McClintock 1996). It

was during this period that the systemsfor dealing with young people who offend began to

diverge between England and Wales and Scotland, following the publication of the

Kilbrandon report (SIEHD 1964) in Scotland and the welfare / social educationapproach it

promoted.

Theperiod from theearly 1970's has been identified as a periodof confusionbecause despite

interest in diversion, ratesof custody in Englandand Wales rose, while care ordersremained

static (Robertson and McClintock 1996). The 1969 Act, shifting the emphasisaway from

justice and legal rights to the welfare and needs of the child, was also never fully

implementedand it was suggestedthat an opportunity was missedto havethe most developed

application of welfare principles seenin England and Wales (Bottoms & Stevenson1992).

41 Towardsthe endof the 1970sin Englandand Wales the welfare approachand useof IT was being increasingly questioned,and replacedby a system with an emphasison justice and punishment(Newburn 2002). There was concern that the emphasisof many IT projects on preventative work was widening the net of community based programmeswhich were viewed by the public as catering for 'delinquents' (Jones 1980).By the early 1980's a 'new orthodoxy' was promoted with a focus on attempting to divert young people identified as relatively persistentand seriousoffenders from custody, with an emphasison a tariff based approachutilising programmesand systems management(Blagg and Smith 1989; Jones

1985), rather than the "diffuse, potentially 'net-widening' practice of preventive work with those 'at risk" (Blagg andSmith 1989:102).

At the beginning of the 1980sarguments were increasingly being made for the return of a

'just deserts'proportionality model, where the penalty fitted the crime, and for greater legal rights for young peopleand their parents(Graham 1996).The call for legal rights parallels a move from welfare to justice, and is often linked with the emergenceof the international consensusfor the rights of all children. There is a paradox in that as there was a call for an increaseof the rights of children, the resultantjustice systemsbecame more punitive to the extentthat therights of childrenare now systematicallyoverlooked injustice systemsaround the world (UNICEF 1998).

Despitethe 'get tough'rhetoric of the Conservativegovenunent in the early 1980sthe 1982

Criminal Justice Act contained aspectsthat counterbalancedthe punitive rhetoric to some extent, attempting to encouragethe use of IT (Newbum 2002; Robertsonand McClintock

1996).The Act aimed to limit the use of youth custody, indeterminatesentences and borstals

wereabolished and detention centre sentences were shortened. Funds were provided to divert

42 young people from custody into intermediatetreatment programmeswith local authorities being encouragedto set up interagencycommittees to deal with young people involved in offending behaviour(Graham 2002).

There was nonethelessa continuing underlying move from welfare to justice. The 1989

Children Act removedwelfare proceedingsfrom youth courts,and the 1991 Criminal Justice

Act was seenas finally moving work with young peoplein trouble from a welfare to a justice approach(Grahmn 2002). The 1991 Act did contain a twin track approach,highlighting the needto divert young peopleinvolved in less seriouscrime and making a distinction between young people (aged 14-17) and children (aged 10-13). This allowed for a more punishment basedapproach for the older, more seriousyoung offender and standardisedthe UK response with some other western countries, like the USA, where serious offenders were dealt with more harshly. As in the 1970s there still appearedto be some confusion about the youth justice systembecause there was not a single consistentmodel for dealing with young people who offended.

Confiision did not last long as an increasing concern about young offenders, and the high public profile of the JamesBulger murderin 1993,resulted in the introductionof more punitive measuresfor young people involved in offending behaviour (Graham2002;

Newburn2002; Goddard 2003). The 1993Criminal Justice Act andthe 1994Criminal Justice and Public OrderAct revisedsome of the early diversionaryprovisions. This includedthe

introduction of securetraining centresfor 12-15 year olds and the doubling of the maximum length of detentionin young offender institutions fiom 12 to 24 months for 15-17 year olds.

The inevitable consequenceof this was an increase in the numbers of young people incarcerated(Newburn 2002).

43 Following the election of the presentLabour governmentin 1997the White Paper'No More

Excuses' was publishedto outline the strategyfor dealing with youth crime. While this white paper made links between youth justice and social exclusion strategies,Goddard (2003) suggeststhat a 'slight-of-hand' in the paper enabledthe new policy to no longer distinguish betweenoffenders and non-offenders.The resultantCrime and Disorder Act (1998) set out for the first time that the primary aim of the youth justice systemwas to preventoffending.

Preventingoffending had previously been identified in a tri-classification model devised by

Brantinghamand Faust(1976), where there was a distinction betweenwhich professionwas responsiblefor different aspectsof prevention (Pease2002). Primary prevention, where the police traditionally took the lead role, aimed to intervenebefore offending began.While this was originally linked with reducingcrime opportunitiesby manipulatingthe environment(eg

CCTV, neighbourhoodwatch) it is increasingly associatedwith the social circumstancesof people andthe 'risk factors' that may increasetheir risk of involvementwith crime (seepage

51). Secondaryprevention sought to changepeople before escalationof behaviour and was associatedwith youth and social work services 'nipping things in the bud' (Williamson

2005). Finally, tertiary preventionintervened following a pattern of offending behaviour.It is viewedtoday as commencingthe processof reversingadverse developments (Williamson

2005), or reducinga crirninal career,in length, seriousness,or frequencyof offending. It was

ft-aditionallythe preserve of theprobation and prison services (Pease 2002).

Williamson (2005) has attemptedto clarify this classification by identifying prevention as a

strategy in five key stages:pre-offending, early offending, persistentoffending, in custody

and post-custody. In essence the recent emphasis on partnerships, and the shared

44 responsibilityfor crime prevention,has bluffed the classificationand also the identification of which agency is responsiblefor each aspectof crime prevention (Pease2002). In today's partnershipsfor preventing youth crime it may be useful to characterisethe three stagesas prevention,diversion and intervention(McIvor 2005).

This blurring of professionalboundaries is a feature of the new youth justice (discussedin

Chapter Three) and of governmentdocuments in general regarding sharing responsibility acrossprofessions (Payne 2000). Section39 of the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) introduced

Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) in England and Wales which, for the first time, placed an obligationon local authoritiesfor the establishmentof multi-professionalteams to dealwith youth crime, consisting of probation, social services, education,police and health.

Responsibilityfor care and protectionissues remained with local authoritysocial services departments.Efficiency and streamliningwere key parts of the Act, which reflectedthe

Government'smanagerialist approach to youthjustice. The separationof careand protection issuesfrom offendingissues was complete, and in Englandand Walesyouth crimewas now clearlydealt with by a punishmentbased model (Bala and Bromwich 2002; Muncie 2004).

This brief developmentalhistory of youth justice policy in the UK, and worldwide, has

highlighted the fact that it has fluctuated on a continuum between a welfare and justice

model. The existenceof irreconcilablephilosophies underpinning the two models has created

much confusion. The emergenceof restorativejustice has been welcomed by practitioners

and policy makers as an approachthat moves beyond the justice model, that has failed to

impact on offending, and the welfare model, which may have excused offending,

(Williamson 2005). Restorativejustice approacheshave been linked with the 'Third Way'

model of youth justice basedon a corporatist,managerialist agenda and encapsulatedin the

45 new correctionalismof New Labour (Crawford 2001). In addition to the managerialaspects of youth crime the 'Third Way' attemptsto addresswelfare issueswhile reacting strongly to the actual crime. It also seeksto addressthe realities of crime by involving victims in the

20 process,a long overlookedaspect of crime (Williamson 2005).

Developmentsin Englandand Wales havebeen welcomedas innovative attemptsto address the issue of young people involved in offending behaviour (Fullwood and Powell 2004;

Newburn 2002). Critics (Muncie 2004; Goldson 2000b; Smith R 2003) point to the increasinglypunitive natureof the youth justice system,reflecting the international move to deal more harshly with young peopleand draw them increasinglyinto formal criminal justice processes,often in contradictionof the various conventionsregarding the rights of children.

Muncie (2002: 27) suggeststhat "...the only defensiblepolicies for dealing with young people in trouble are those which actively pursue diversionfrom formal processing." Supporting this, Drakeford (2001: 43) addsthat any "state systemthat intervenesin their [children] lives must give priority to the protection and promotion of their well-being." Diversion from the justice system was one of the fundamentalprinciples underpinningthe establishmentof the

Scottish Children's Hearings System,which from the outset,was clear of the need to place young peopleat the centre,of the processand promote their well being.

YOUTH JUSTICE IN SCOTLAND

Following the establishmentin 1961 of a working party under Lord Kilbrandon to look at the provision of Scottish law relating to children, Scotlandpursued a different focus for youth justice dm Englandand Wales. At the time of the Kilbrandon review it was felt that the way

" The 'Third Way' agendais discussedin further detail in ChapterThree as the fundamentalphilosophical and political foundationfor the presentyouth justice systemin the UIC

46 children were being dealt with was inconsistentand unsystematic,with no uniform structure for dealing with young people involved in offending (Whyte 2000). The report, publishedin

1964,and its resultantrecommendations were enshrinedin the Social Work (Scotland)Act

1968,which had no precedentin English law. While Scottish law had always differed from

English, before the introduction of the 1968 Act Scotlanddid not have a distinct system for dealing with young people who offend and the legislation in Scotland usually followed closely that enactedin England and Wales (Lockyer & Stone 1998; Parsloe 1978; Whyte

2000).21

The 1968 Social Work (Scotland)Act madethe welfare of children the primary criterion in any justification for intervention,whether an offence or abuse/neglectreferral, pre-datingthe

UN convention by twenty years. The Children's Hearings Systemwas introduced in 1971, and despitesome changesand an updating in the 1995 Children (Scotland) Act, where most provisions are now contained,the principles of young people who commit offences being dealt with under the same system as those in need of care and protection has remainedthe cornerstoneof Scottish policy. Young people under the age of 16 can still be prosecutedin court in Scotland at the requestof the Lord Advocate, mainly for serious offenceslike rape and murder, if they have older co-accused,or commit offences resulting in disqualification 22 (eg road traffic offences).

The HearingsSystem is a unified welfare-basedsystem for children and young people. For those involved in offending behaviour it representsa diversion from the criminal justice

systemwith referrals to the Reporter to the Children's Panel,who decidesif further action is necessary.The systemseparates looking at the needsof children from establishingguilt anda

IU juvenilecourts in Englandand Wales were never fully implanentedin Scotland(Pusloe 1978). 1112 under16 year olds were prosecuted in thecourts in 2003(Scottish Executive 2005b).

47 court only becomesinvolved if there is dispute over the facts of a referral. Decisions are made at a Hearing by three lay people from the community, following discussionwith the young person,their family and usually a social worker. Other professionalsmay be invited if appropriateand this is most often a teacher.The whole processemphasises participation of all involved and relative informality. The Reporter overseesthe Hearing to ensureadherence to legal mattersand the smoothrunning of the meeting.

The Hearing has basically three options available to it, now contained in the Children

23 (Scotland) Act 1995 s69 and 70. These are to discharge the referral with no further

implications for the child; to make a non residential supervision requirement by a local

authority worker (usually a social worker); to make a residential supervision requirement

wherea child mustgo to a specifiedresidential school, secure unit or fosterhome. While

thesemeasures may be seenas restrictivethe objective is to re-educateand rehabilitate, not to punish (Murray 1988),with the focus on a social educationmodel (Whyte 2000). Following the imposition of a supervisionrequirement there has to be regular reviews at a Hearing to monitor the progressof the young person.

While generally referred to as a beacon of good practice regarding the welfare of young

peoplethe HearingsSystem has been criticised for potential humanrights abusesbecause of a

lack of due processand the possibility of indeterminateinterventions premised on the welfare

approach(Asquith 1998;Hallett 2000).Such arguments have generally been used to justify

the move in other countries away from a welfare to a justice approach.However, apart from a

few minor alterationsregarding grounds of referral and accessto professionalreports, to meet

internationalstandards, the HearingsSystem has remainedintact for over thirty years.It is

23As thenow Anti-Social Behaviour (Scotland) Act (2004)is implementedthis is likelyto changewith additional sanctions, includinS supervisionand nwnitoring orders, becon-dng available.

48 largely compliant with UN conventions,although there have been criticisms of the age at which young peoplemove to the adult system(UNCRC 2002).

The volume of researchinto the Children's HearingsSystem has been fairly small (Murray

1998; NCH Scotland 2004). There have been specific criticisms, especially about lack of clear objectives and focus of interventionsmaking evaluationdifficult (Martin et al. 1981), although on the whole it has been seenas withstanding most criticisms (Blagg and Smith

1989).Recent research has focussedon the similarities betweenthose young peoplereferred for care and protection and offending reasons,providing support for the original Kilbrandon conceptof looking at both needsand deeds (Waterhouseet al 2000; Whyte 2003a).

The IT developmentsduring the 1970's and 1980's south of the border also evolved in

Scotland. As part of the Hearings' community based welfare approachthey dependedon individual local initiatives, with central governmentproviding encouragementand financial support (Robertsonand McClintock 1996). IT was evidence in practice of the diverging policy and practice of the Scottish system, where a holistic focus on needs and welfare ensuredthe best interests of the young person remainedparamount. As will be seen later, elementsof IT were evident in the practiceof both Connectand Freagarrachin Falldrk, albeit with a more'evidence-based' approach based on researchpublished in theintervening twenty

years.

The Children's HearingsSystem is not immune from change,however, and there is presently

an ongoingconsultation regarding its future.The first phase(Stevenson and Brotchie2004)

looked at the principles and objectives of the system.The secondphase has recently set out

proposals for changesin structure or legislation which may be necessaryin the evolving

49 social environment(Scottish Executive 2005a).This consultationfollowed claims that some advisersin the Scottish Executivewanted to dismantlethe system (Scotsman2004), that the system was too slow in dealing with cases involving young people who offend (Audit

Scotland 2002) and a general recognition that changeswere needed (Scottish Executive

2000). In the first phasereport there was strong support for retaining the basic ethos of the

system,although there was also recognition of the difficulties sometimesfaced in dealing with young people who are more persistent and /or serious in their offending behaviour

(Stevensonand Brotchie 2004). These consultationsmay have tremendousimplications for the future of the Scottishwelfare basedsystem as the ScottishExecutive seekto introduce an evidence-based'what works' approach,which has been associatedwith a more punitive model (Goldson2005a; 2005b; Muncie 2004).

21stCentury Scottish developments

The Children's Hearingsconsultation has beenpart of the Scottish Executive's Youth Crime

Review, as Scotlandhas been giving increasingattention to youth justice issuessince the turn of the century. A strategy sessionheld by the Scottish Cabinet in 1999 commissioned a review of youth crime under an advisory group, which reportedback in June 2000 (Scottish

Executive 2000). Many of the policies in place today are a result of a range of

recommendationsincluded in thereport (see appendix 1).

The Youth Crime Review madefunding available for eachlocal authority to invest in multi-

agency youth justice teams which it considered key in reducing youth crime (Scottish

Executive 2002d). A progress report (Scottish Executive 2002e) indicated that every local

authority had established multi-agency youth justice strategy groups and many had

50 establishedoperational youth justice temns.The actual delivery of youth justice serviceswas devolvedto eachlocal authority, a fact reflectedin the different typesof servicesdescribed in the progressreport. A commitmentto a multi-agencyapproach (discussed further in Chapter

Three) was reiteratedin Scotland's Action Programmeto ReduceYouth Crime published in

2002.The Action Programmeidentified the aims of the new youth justice in Scotlandas:

* Increasingpublic confidencein Scotland's systemof youthjustice

* Easingthe transition betweenthe youthjustice andcriminal justice systems

e Giving victims an appropriateplace in the youthjustice process

e Providing all young peoplewith the opportunity to fulfil their potential

e Promotingeffective early intervention

In addition to concernsabout responsesfor young people identified as persistentoffenders, the Action Programmesought to prioritise a focus on preventionbefore offending behaviour begins and early intervention for those young people with one or two minor offences. The

Scottish Executive defined early intervention as "providing help and support at the stage before a set of circumstanceshas tumed into a difficulty" (Scottish Executive 2000: Annex

B.2). Early intervention is based on a substantialresearch base that correlates a number of risk factors in early life with later offending behaviour.There are indications that the early onset of offending behaviour is likely to lead to a longer andmore persistentoffending career

(Farrington 1996; Graham and Bowling 1995; Flood-Pageet al 2000; Rutter et al 1998).

Theserisk factorsinclude:

e Family factors relating to low income, poor parental supervision,parental conflict,

violence and size

51 9 Psycho-socialfactors related to relationshipswith parents,peers and partners

* School experiences including poor behaviour, low achievement, truancy and

exclusion

e Community - lack of neighbourhoodattachment, availability of drugs, community

disorganisationand neighbourhoodneglect

9 Individual factors including IQ, temperament,cognitive impairment, impulsiveness

and hyperactivity

Crucially, the Youth Crime Review recognisedthat the researchwas not able to say how many children exposedto theserisk factors do not offend later. What it failed to highlight was that the majority of theserisk factors, and consequentlythe majority of young people involved in the youth justice system, are concentrated in the more disadvantaged communities suffering from multiple indices of deprivation (Goldson 2005a). For these reasonsprevention and early intervention raisesmany practical, theoretical, legal and moral

issuesbecause not enoughis known about the various pathwaysto crime (Whyte 2004a). A

fimdamentalquestion also remainsabout who delivers theseservices. In Englandand Wales

the YOTs have taken on all aspectsof prevention,early intervention andpersistent offending

with a variety of different orders and legislation available to meet all aspectsand levels of

Goffendingbehaviour. ' It remainsto be seenin Scotlandthe directionthat local authorities takein relationto earlyintervention and prevention.

To beginthe implementation of the recommendationsin the Youth CrimeReview and Action

Programmethe Ad Hoc Groupon Youth Crime recommendeda tiered approach in the Ten

Point Action Plan (Scottish Executive2002f). Additional funding was madeavailable to local

authoritiesto developyouth justice provision (Scottish Executive2002g). The Ten Point Plan

52 included proposalsfor tackling persistentoffending, to promote community safety and to promotethe effectivenessof the youthjustice system(see appendix 2).

Later in 2002 National Standardsfor Scotland's Youth Justice Services(Scottish Executive

2002a) were published to help meet the target of reducing the number of young people identified as persistentoffenders by 10% by 2006. Comparedto the National Standardsfor adult services(Social Work ServicesGroup 1991) thesewere relatively limited but they set out the objectivesfor youth justice services:

e To improve the quality of the youthjustice process

9 To improve the rangeand availability of programmesto stop youth offending

e To reducethe time taken from the initial report on the offender (usually by the police) to

the implementationof a hearingdecision

e To improve the information providedto victims and local communities

e To ensurethat secureaccommodation is usedwhen it is the most appropriatedisposal and

ensureit is effective in reducing offending behaviour

To improve the strategic direction and coordination of youth justice servicesby local

youthjustice strategytearns

Prominent throughout the various policy statementswas the belief that "specialist services for children and youngpeople who offend are part of a wider network of children's services"

(Scottish Executive2002d: 5). This included youth justice teams maintaining close links with

education,criminal justice, community safetyand crime preventionplans. While thesepolicy

statementsshowed some commitment to welfareprinciples for thoseunder 16 yearsold they

containedan increasinglypopular punitive rhetoric (Whyte 2003), becomingmore evident as

53 the May 2003 election neared.There was increasingevidence that the more punitive policy in

England and Wales was beginning to emerge in Scotland and there appearedto be some juxtaposition of justice and welfare concepts,perhaps reflecting the confusing and messy

businessof youth justice (Crawford 2001; Muncie 2004) in Englandand Wales.

Children's Hearings and Criminal Justice SystemsInterface

The 2000 Youth Crime Review identified 14-18 year olds as a group of young people in

trouble as a particular causefor concernbecause of their place at the transition betweenthe

two systems.The position of 16 and 17 yearolds who offend is a particularly ambiguousone.

Under the United Nations Conventionon the Rights of the Child "a child meansevery human

being below the age of eighteenyears unless,under the law applicable to the child, majority

is attained earlier" (part 1, article 1). Under Scottish and UK law the ageof majority, the age

at which one is fully an adult (Fabb and Guthrie 1997),is not reacheduntil 18. The Children

(Scotland) Act 1995 defines a child as somebodyunder the age of 16 (03(2)(b)(i)) unless

they are on a Children's Hearing supervisionrequirement when it is under 18 years of age

(03(2)(b)(ii)). While the National Standards provide a definition of persistent young

offender, they do not provide a definitive explanationof the agesthat the documentis aimed

at.

If a 16or 17year old is subjectto a supervisionrequirement through the Children's Hearings

Systemand appearsbefore the Court, the Court should seek guidanceand a report from the

Hearing (Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995 s66). Legislation also exists in the Criminal

Procedure(Scotland) Act 1995 s49 for referring young people over 16 and under 17Y2years

old appearingbefore the adult courts to the Children's Hearing for advice or disposal. The

54 extentto which the courts haveemployed this latter provision is unclear,although it hasbeen found to be infrequently used, with the cut off point of 16 years being acceptableto professionalsfor transition to the adult system(Hallet and Hazel 1998).

Whatever the legal definitions of a child in Scotland, and despite available legislation, it remains that the majority of young people aged 16 and 17 who offend are dealt with in the adult criminal justice system (Whyte 2000). This anomaly is at odds with the welfare provision for young offendersunder 16 yearsof age andis describedas an embarrassmentfor the Scottishsystem (Whyte 2003a).One of the recommendationsof the Youth Crime Review was to look at the feasibility of a bridging pilot schemeto refer as many 16 and 17 year olds as possibleto the HearingsSystem (Scottish Executive 2000: para 7). Early in 2001 a group was formed to addressthis issueand their report, producedin the summerof 2001,concluded that such schemeswere feasible(Scottish Executive 2001a). The Criminal Justice(Scotland)

Bill (2003) containeda section for the implementationof theseproposals, although this was not enactedbecause the Executive chose anotherpolicy option focussing on Youth Courts.

While the reasonsfor this policy changewere not madeexplicit, the proximity of the Scottish electionsand media interestin youth crime cannotbe discounted.

In the spring of 2003 the Scottish Executive(2003b) announced the piloting of a Youth Court

in Hamilton for persistentyoung offenders aged 16 and 17, with the capability to deal with

young people aged 15 in certain circumstances.The evaluation report of the Youth Court

found that its key strengthswere the fast-trackingof young people and the wider availability

of servicesand resources(Pophmn et al 2005). Additional funding for a secondYouth Court

in Airdrie was also announcedin January2004 (Scottish Executive 2004c).While the Youth

Court pilot may be an attempt to deal with young people at the transition stage it is far

55 removed from a system attemptingto refer as many 16 and 17 year olds to the Hearings

Systemand its disposalsare those availableto the adult courts. A Youth Court may serveto mitigate some of the criticisms directed at Scotland about routinely dealing with young offenders in this age group in the adult criminal justice system, but it is certainly not diversionto a less formal system.

At the end of January 2003 the Scottish Executive (2003c) also announcedFast Track

Hearings to tackle youth crime in three areas of Scotland. The recently published final evaluation reported decreasedtime scalesin meeting time interval group recommendations for delivery of reports and decision making (see Scottish Executive 2003d), and improved social work reports and assessmentsfor Hearings, but less of a decreasein offending behaviour than in comparisonlocal authorities(Hill et al 2005). A decisionhas recently been takennot to extendthe pilot following thesefindings (ScottishExecutive 2005d).

Latest developments in Scotland

The findings ascertainingto the effectivenessof both the Fast Track Hearings and Youth

Courts are likely to have implications for the future developmentof youth justice provision in

Scotland. As discussedearlier, this rapidly evolving policy raises challenges for local strategy,as planned changeis difficult when new initiatives may be introducedat any time.

The most recentdevelopments in the Scottish youth justice systemare Anti-Social Behaviour

Ordersintroduced under the Anti-SocialBehaviour (Scotland) Act 2004.This Act contains provisionfor electronicmonitoring of youngpeople involved in offendingbehaviour, and intensive supervisionand monitoring and parentingorders. 24 For the first time the Children's

I Thefirst youngperson in Scotlandto bemade subject to electronicmonitoring has recently been tagged (Clain: 2005).

56 HearingsSystem will have the power to impose orderson young people other than the three main disposalsmentioned earlier. While the Anti-Social Behaviour (Scotland) Act 2004 is likely to havea tremendousimpact on youthjustice servicesin Scotlandits introduction came after the fieldwork for this thesiswas completedand thereforereceives little finther mention in the findings.

CONCLUSION

Debateabout the issuesof children and young peopleinvolved in crime datesback centuries, although more recently, over the last hundred years, specific youth justice statuteshave developed with the introduction of youth courts and an international rights agenda. A worldwide focus at the beginningof the 20thcentury on the welfare of young peoplecoming to the attentionof the authoritiesfor offending behaviourwas supersededby a shift towardsa morejustice basedmodel of punishmentin the latter half of the century.

While the conceptualisationof youth justice systemsas either welfare or justice models has been a useful tool for identifying systems,the complexity of the debateboth historically and

contemporaryquestions its generalisations.Perhaps the positive rights agendahighlights this

most clearly as the rights of children to be heardin decisionmaking questionsthe past

decisions,made by adults, that young peopleare simply in need of care and / or control. All

signatoriesto the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) should have procedures

in place to protect children's rights. However, evidencepoints to the fact that theserights and

conventionsare widely ignored as each country continuesto pursue their own policies for

addressingyouth offending.

57 Towards the conclusion of the 2& century there was an increasingworldwide focus on

policies that soughtto encompassall aspectsof offending behaviourincluding consequences

for the victim, the offender,the community and the authorities.This corporatist 'third model'

(Pratt 1989) of youth justice increasedthe partnershipsof various stakeholdersin the youth justice systemand was operationalisedin manyjurisdictions by the introduction of restorative justice approachesto addresssome of the perceived negative aspectsof the justice and welfare models. However, it has also been characterised as an extension of the responsibilisation.of young people within a framework where their rights are still not to the

fore.

Scotlandhas resisteda shift towardsa more punitive approachevident in otherjurisdictions.

The Scottish system has retained its distinctive approachpredicated on a social education/

community / welfare model where all young people referred to the Hearings Systemwere

treated similarly regardlessof the reason for referral. At the beginning of this century the

Scottish Executiveand Parliamentbegan to take an increasedinterest in youth justice issues

and potentially wide-ranging changesand consultationswere introducedfor a systemthat had

remainedrelatively stablefor thirty years.The next chapterexamines the major political and

theoretical foundationsof these developmentsand how they are increasingly impacting on

Scottishpolicy andmay begin to undermineits distinctive approach.

58 CHAPTER THREE

THE POLICY OF PARTNERSHIP IN A MANAGERIALIST,

EVIDENCE-BASED FRAMEWORK

This chapterdetails the developmentof the multi-agencyapproach to the 'new youth justice'

(Goldson 2000b)as part of the 'new governanceof crime' (Loader and Sparks2002: 87). The diverse theoretical and political discoursesof corporatist govemance,managerialism and evidence-basedpolicy are briefly outlined to provide context for their application to the new youth justice agenda. Discussion of the 'what works' and desistance literature, and partnershiptheory, provides frameworks which are more readily identifiable indicators of

governancefor policy makersand practitioners.The chapterexamines research from England

and Wales, where the multi-agency approachis most developedin Europe (Buckland and

Stevens2001). However, the major focus is on the developingpartnership and 'what works' practice in Scotlandwhich are increasingly indicative of the emergingmanagerialist agenda

and erosionof the welfare basedyouth justice system(Whyte 2004b).

At the beginningof the 21" century the conceptof partnershipsas a central part of policy in a

wide rangeof political and socialarenas is well established,with youthjustice beingone of

these.The partnershipapproach is increasinglybeing seenas the 'answer' to youth offending

through engagingmultiple agenciesto addressall aspectsof the 'problem,' whereasin the

past interventionshave either been basedon welfare or punishmentapproaches by specialist

agencies(Omaji 2003; Williamson 2005). While thereare links to traditionalcriminological

thought,it has been suggestedthat in many respectsthe new youth justice is atheoretical

regardingthe aetiology of youth crimeas questionsabout causation, criminality and links to

59 punishmentare removedfrom the political arena(McLaughlin and Muncie 2000). The focus on the managerialistagenda for economy, efficiency and effectivenessin the public sector has erodedthe requirementfor professionalunderstanding or responsesto youth crime (Pitts

2003; Tsui and Cheung2004) as centralisedpolicy makersdictate the natureof youth justice interventions.

GOVERNANCE AND CORPORATISM IN NEW LABOUR'S'THIRD WAY'

Partnershipapproaches do not exist in a vacuum, they are influenced by the pervading philosophy regarding the governmentality and governance of the state (Ling 2000).

Governancerefers to the way in which conduct in society is regulatedand how the state govems(Foucault 1991).

"It is the tactics of government that make possible the continual definition and

redefinition of what is in the competenceof the state and what is not, the public versus

theprivate, and so on " (Foucault2003: 448).

In the contextof crimeand justice, governance is mosteasily understood as the "multiplicity

of strategies"(Loader and Sparks2002: 87) employedto meet the government'sstrategic

aims.Loader and Sparkshave identified this reconfiguringof the governanceof crime as

consistingof three strands.The first is to emphasisethe limits of the state(police and

criminal justice agencies) to adequately address crime, the second is to promote

managerialismand the third to promote partnershipworking. However, these strandshave

developeda complex relationship. Whereasgovernance in Britain was previously focussed

on the public-private partnership and market economy, governmentality has again been

60 redefinedto focus on central goverment detenniningpriorities and objectiveswhile placing the responsibility for co-ordinatingit at a local level (Ling 2000). Governmentinstitutions are less concernedwith delivering services on the ground - 'rowing, ' focussing instead on establishing overall policy frameworks - 'steering' (Crawford 1997; Loader and Sparks

2002). Centralgovernment strategies are prioritised so that partnerswhose interestsare not in line with theseare marginalised(Ling 2000). Governancehas alsobeen more pessimistically defined to refer to policies which can manipulate the population to acceptingthe need to be governedand govern themselves(Muncie 2004), to securean obedient population and civil society(Ling 2000).25

Governing through statutory agencies, including a large number of relationships with organisationsin the private, public and voluntary sectorsis a key factor in governancetoday

(Wargent 2002), following the recognition that governmentsalone cannot achieve policy objectives (Ling 2000). Governanceis closely associatedwith a corporatist agendawhich relatesto:

"The tendenciesto be found in advancedweyare societies whereby the capacityfor

conflict and disruption is reducedby meansof the centralisation of policy, increased

government intervention, and the co-operation of various professional and interest

groups into a collective whole with homogenousaims and objectives" (Pratt 1989:

245).

The original conceptof corporatismwas linked to the provision of social welfare in a liberal market society,where the closerelationship between economic and social policy required co-

25Ling (2000)provides a short,but clear,description of the factorsleading up to thepresent mode of governancein theUYL

61 operation to develop the various interdependentfunctions and interests (Mishra 1984).

Mishra believesthat a corporatist agendais well suited to a national framework for welfare provision.

A national frarnework is now in place for youth justice in England and Wales and has been developingin Scotlandsince the introductionof National Standardsfor youth justice in 2002

(Scottish Executive 2002a). This 'joined up' approachto all aspectsof welfare provision in

Britain is seenby Crawford (2001) as indicative of New Labour's 'Third Way' political agenda,which seeksto encapsulatethe conceptof globalisation and the rolling back of the stateas part of a move towardsa neo-liberalmarket approachto welfare provision - policies examinedin the academicdiscourse of Giddens (1998; 2000). Youth crime especially is a focus for this contemporarypolitical agenda(McLaughlin andMuncie 2000) and the 'Tough on crime, tough on the causesof crime' New Labour mantra is viewed as an accompanying

'Third Way' political banner (Crawford 2001). Modernisation, working in partnership, responsibilities,administrative efficiency and community basedcrime preventionare all part of the 'Third Way' in the new 'democratic state' (Giddens 1998).

In relation to crime this 'Third Way' New Labour approachhas its theoreticalunderpinnings in the criminologicalfocus of left realistcriminologists (Matthews and Young 1982;Young

1986; 1997). Left realism seeksto engageall parties involved in crime and its resolution including the perpetrator,the victim, stateagencies and the community. It hasbeen cited as a significant influence on presentUK justice policy (Crawford 1997; 2001; Walklate 2003).

This influence is related to the middle ground that left realism has sought to occupy in

26 relation to e escrip on and explanationof crime. It has distanceditself from theorists

I Distancingfrom the left andright political ideologies is a keyaspect of the"T'hird Way" (Giddens2000).

62 viewing crime causation as simply being linked to free will and choice (see Cornish and

Clarke 1986;Matza 1964;Sykes and Matza 1957)and also from critical criminology viewing crime as mainly linked to poverty or the result of labelling (see Becker 1963; Lemert 1972;

Taylor et al 1973). Left realism seeks to encompassall these aspectsof criminology to explaincrime in a modem society.

In relation to children it has been suggestedthat the 'Third Way' has ".. a deeplyembedded and seldomacknowledged social control agenda(James and James 2001: 224). This agendais observed as being at odds with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child because policies couched in the rhetoric of rights and responsibilities are in effect limiting the freedomof children(Goldson 2000a; James and James 2001). Therefore the agenda is viewed as having implicationsfor children and young peopleinvolved in offending behaviour because,in addition to a move away from a welfare fi-amework,the rights of children are also being eroded(see UNCRC 2002).

Pratt (1989) was one of the first commentatorsto link this corporatistagenda to youth justice with his 'third model' of juvenilejustice transcendingthe welfareand justice dichotonomy, eventhough he believedthe justice model remaineddominant. In this 'third model' the governmentcan, in one statement,appeal to both the left and the right of the political spectrum,despite a widespreadacknowledgement that youthjustice policy in Englandand

Wales is now punishmentbased (Bala et al 2002).

in England and Wales corporatism and the new youth justice, with a focus on punishment, are seen as synonymous(Pitts 2003). However, Pitts statesthat corporatism could equally apply to any approach to youth justice, as it is an organisational model rather than an

63 understandingof the theoretical and professionalideologies infonning practice. The present corporatist agenda, with an aim to modernise the system through 'managerialisation'

(McLaughlin et al 2001), is viewed as an attemptto take the conceptof governancefurther than ever before in the arenaof offending behaviour (Smith 2000b). Smith suggeststhat for many years criminal justice practitioners have been extolling the virtues of a better co- ordinated approachto youth justice, and the new governanceis now promoting this. The difference may be that in contemporarypolicy a bottom-up, professionalframework is being supersededby the managerialisttop down agendapropagating an emphasison delinquency management(Pitts 2005),rather than putting the best interestsof the child first.

Managerialism

Managerialismis defined as "a set of beliefs and practices that assumesbetter management will reduce a wide range of economic and social problems. " (Tsui and Cheung 2004:

437:438). This has been describedas a private sector solution to the problems of the public sector (Dixon et al 1998). As part of this solution, public sector efficiency is linked to managerialpractices such as strategic planning, re-engineering, customer service, quality assurance,performance management,risk managementand accounting - the 'managerial

(Adams Ingersoll 1990) 27When meta-myth' and . applied specifically to the public sectorand welfare state, managerialismis often referred to as New Public Management(NPM) which aims to replace the old-style 'bureau-professionalism'(Langan 2000) with the presumed efficiency of the private sector and market forces. It seeksto challenge the autonomy of welfare professionals becauseof the 'failure' of their agencies(Newman 2000). Langan

(2000:159) describesfour key principles of NPM as:

Clarkeet al (edsX2000)provide a comprehensive description of diemany facets of managerialismin variouswelfare sectors.

64 e Cost control and financial transparency

a The purchaser/ provider split of market forces

* Decentralisationof managerialauthority and making a distinction between strategic

managementand operationalmanagement

* Satisfyingconsumer demands through consultationwith serviceusers

There is substantialdebate about whether private sectormanagerialism is in fact transferable to public sector organisations(Raine and Wilson 1997; Tsui and Cheung 2004; Langan

2000). Tsui and Cheung(2004) believe that in the public sector managerialismis of limited use, and should be handled with care, becausethe values and principles are completely differentfrom thosein theprivate sector. They alsoadd that thepremise of NPM that social problems can be addressedby more effective and efficient managerial measureswithin organisationsoften overlooks the roots of social problems and allows responsibility to be placed on the professionalsat the front line. With this in mind Tsui and Cheung (2004) summarisethe impact of managerialismas:

e The client is a customernot a serviceuser

* The manageris the key person,rather than practitioners

9 The staff are seenas employees,not professionalsas professional autonomy is not

respected

9 Managementknowledge, rather then professional knowledge, is dominant

9 The market,rather than societyor community is the main environment

9 Efficiency,rather than effectiveness, is theperformance indicator

9 Cashand contracts, rather than care and concern are the foundationof relationships

65 e Quality is equatedwith standardisationand documentation

In the areaof justice in Englandand Wales managerialismhas becomethe norm in probation practice (Gibbs 1998), although Raine & Wilson (1997) believe there is actually a 'post managerial criminal justice' based on partnerships. The post managerial hypothesis is supportedby Newman (2000: 45), who suggeststhat the 'discourseof modernization' since the New Labour governmentwas electedin 1997 has resulted in a subtle shift from NPM to

'modern management'. This emphasisescollaboration and partnerships for longer term effectiveness,rather than competition and market forces for short term efficiency. However, the contentionthat the justice system moved beyond a managerialistor competitive market approach to post managerial criminal justice is contested.Gibbs (2001a) suggeststhat probation partnershipsdeveloped from managerialism,purchaser-provider relationships and competition, and merely moved away from the hard line aspectsof marketsand competition rather than rejecting them outright. Public sector managerialisationtherefore involves multi- agencypartnerships to managesocial 'problems' rather than resolve any of the underlying issues(Muncie 2004; Clarke and Newman 1997) and merely reins in some of the flaws of

Conservativemanagerialism, rather than overturning them (Clarke et al 2000). Clarke et al contendthat NPM is not aspervasive as believed in thepublic servicesbecause of the various views on managerialismand their useas shorthandfor changesin organisational,beliefs and practices,rather than a systematicapplication of theoreticalprinciples. 28

in youth justice practice the practical aspect of managerialism is characterisedin New

Labour's mode of governanceby the adoption of an evidence-based,'what works' agenda

I It is thisshorthand that is referredto in thisthesis rather than a detailedcritique and exploration of thetheoretical concept.

66 and focus on economyand efficiency. Individuals are held responsiblefor their own actions, with crime preventionand reduction managed by partnerships(Muncie & Hughes2002).

EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY AND PRACTICE

The 'what works' discoursein criminal justice should not be seenin isolation from the wider political agendaas it is "an important discourseassociated with the political rhetoric of the

'Third Way' in its orientation towards pragmatism rather than ideology in politics "

(Newman and Nutley 2003: 548). In the justice arenait has been claimed that this discourse diminishesprofessional skills and autonomy,focussing instead on certifiable 'outcomes' that have little connectionwith understandingthe causesof offending (Muncie 2004). In England and Walesthe managerialistagenda and focus on 'what works' practicehave shapedthe developmentof the probation service,and increasingly the youth justice system,through an increasinglypunitive neoliberalrhetoric. While evident in Scotland,this punitive approachis apparentto a much lesserextent, largely due to the emphasison a rehabilitative ideal which still remains(McIvor 2004; McNeill 2004).

The last thirty yearshave seenthe ebbingand flowing of the rehabilitative ideal in probation/ social work with young people who offend. A 'nothing works' philosophy was evident throughout the late 1970s,fuelled by political and media help (Nutley & Davies 1999). This

view emanatedfrom the United Statesfrom researchreviews questioning the efficacy of

interventionsto reducereoffending (Martinson 1974;Lipton et al 1979).Subsequent research has attemptedto challengethe suggestionthat nothing works andproduce evidencethat some things do work (seeAndrews et al 1990;Andrews 1995; Maguire 1995; Underdown 1998), indeed Martinson (1974) concludedthat more researchwas necessaryas it was possiblethat

67 somethings worked. The evidenceemerged to sucha degreethat by 1994 Raynor et al stated that a 'nothing works' claim was untenableand demonstrablyfalse. 'What works' has been an ever presentdiscourse in criminal and youthjustice since.

Effectivenessand evaluation

The 'what works' discourserelies on the production of a body of evidencethat articulatesthe

29 effectivenessof interventions aimed at people involved in offending behaviour. McNeill

(2000a) has suggestedthree possiblereasons for measuringeffectiveness; political, ethical andpragmatic. The political aspectis driven by the evidence-basedpractice and 'what works' agendaseeking accountability, efficiency and value for money in public services.The ethical agendais the professionalaspects of social work whereby social workers should be offering help that is likely to be effective. The pragmatic reason is that without some form of evaluation social work cannot defenditself againstaccusations of ineffectiveness.It is likely that a combination of thesereasons motivates a serviceor workers to evaluatetheir practice.

Arguably, in Scotland,the political is on the ascendancywithin the 'Third Way' discourseas targets for reducing offending and submitting Children's Hearingsreports on time dominate thepresent agenda (Scottish Executive 2000; 2003d; PA Consulting2004).

Effectivenesshas also long been recognisedas being notoriouslydifficult to define and measurein socialwork (Cheethamet al 1992;Gibbs 2001b)and in work with offenders

(Mair 2004) because:

" Concurringwith thewider dmxwetical debate the conceptof 'effectiveness'has not been defined in thisthesis. It is assumedto encompass manyaspects of youngpeople's lives and is notrestricted to a measureof reoffending.

68 "There is often disagreement,in the complex world of human behaviour, as to what

should count as the evidenceof effectiveness.The aims ofsocial policies are sometimes

hard to operationalise,such as improving quality of life, or hard to measure,such as

reducingreoffending " (Wilcox 2003: 21).

A wider theoretical debate also questionswhat is evaluation and what counts as evidence

(Mair 2004). The debatehas its roots in the contrastingepistemological positions relating to qualitative and quantitative methodsof data collection.30 The methodological and scientific problems (seePawson and Tilley 1997) associatedwith the 'what works' debatehave more recently called into questionthe evidencebase and there have been concernsthat 'science' hasbeen driven by political and economicconcerns (Muncie 2004).

Evidence for 'what works'

Over the last thirty yearsresearch has attemptedto quantify the effectivenessof interventions with offenders. There have been a number of extensive reviews of specific research programmes,or previous studies, to identify the factors that appear to be effective (see

Andrews et al 1990;Lipsey 1995;McIvor 1990;McGuire 2002; Vennardet al 1997) someof which are specificto youngpeople who offend (McLaren2000; Whyte 2004a;Utting and

Vennard2000). Generally, those interventions found to be mostpromising with youngpeople have utilised cognitive-behaviouralapproaches with various techniquesof application, working acrossmultiple agencies,where the youngperson is directly involvedlearning new

skills(see Lipsey 1995; McGuire 1993; McLaren 2000; Whyte 2004a). 31

This debateis discussedin greaterdetail in ChapterFive McLamn (2000) providesdetailed descriptions of what works and what doesnot.

69 Theseresearch findings, which resulted in a renewedoptimism amongstpolicy makers and practitionersregarding effectiveness of work with offenders,originated from studiesutilising the statisticaltool of 'meta-analysis' (McGuire 1995).Meta-analysis aggregates the findings of many studies allowing individual variance to be statistically controlled, making any potential treatment effect more evident and allowing the implications of a large body of researchto be seenmore clearly (Lipsey 1995) and subjectto a more rigorous analysis(Mair

2004). Reviewing a number of these meta-analysisstudies and other aspectsof the 'what works' agenda in a seminal publication, McGuire (1995) concluded that well delivered programmesachieved a reductionin recidivism of between10% and 12%.32

Although the use of meta-analysis is useful for identifying promising programme characteristicsthe claims made for it are subjectto criticism, which while not being able to ignore or dismiss the findings, cast somedoubt on their acceptedveracity (Mair 2004). The techniqueis seenas problematic for making wider inferencesabout the relative effectiveness of programmesbecause the use of the statistics for differently designed programmesand sampling techniquesassumes that the offenders across various studies are representative.

Thereis also an assumptionthat the interventionsare comparableand deliveredin similar conditionswhen in practicemeta-analysis may be unableto determinethe outcomeif the interventionis transferredto anothersetting (Mair andCopas, 1996). The use of meta-analysis to aggregatefindings is viewed with scepticismbecause it may not be certain which componentsof the interventionsare actuallyworking best. Programmes for offenderstend to employ a variety of methods that include social skills training, problem-solving training, anger control and education in addition to cognitive-behaviouralapproaches (Hollin 1996;

Vennard et al 1999). However, while acknowledgingthere remains scepticism,Nutley &

32Andrews et al 1990;Lipsey 1995; Lose] 1995 describe further meta-malysis studies.

70 Davies (1997) believe meta-analysisis now widely acceptedas an appropriatetechnique for analysingcriminal justice services.Its use, togetherwith literature reviews, has establisheda set of effectivenessprinciples that are widely considered to be necessaryas minimum requirementsbefore interventionscan be expectedto be effective (seeBuist and Whyte 2004;

Utting and Vennard 2000). Theseprinciples underpin many of the interventionsused by the

Youth Justice Board in England and Wales and are referredto in many of the youth justice documentsin Scotland.

Effectivenessprinciples

The risk principle involves a matching of offender risk level and degree of service intervention. Higher risk offenders require a higher level of intervention and failure to achieve this may have negative effects in terms of reoffending (Andrews et al 1990). Risk assessmentis increasingly emphasisedas an integral part of a social worker's task, and has 33 been an area of practice found to be lacking in the past in Scotland(Scottish Office 1996).

"le the last few years have seen an increaseduse in Scotland of a standardised,risk assessmentfor adult offenders,either the Scottish Executive RAI -4 (Scottish Office 1998a) or LSI-R (Levelof ServiceInventory-Revised, Andrews and Bonta 1996), their use for young offendershas been more patchy (Audit Scotland2002). However, all youngpeople appearing before a Children's Hearing should now have a risk assessmentcompleted (Scottish

Executive2002a). 34

11While risk assessmenthas in the past been linked nxn with crin-dnaljustice social workers the National Standardsfor Youth Justice (ScottishExecutive 2002a) haveprornoted this asa key part of children's services. I Risk assessmentis discussedon pages78-80

71 The criminogenic need principle statesthat intervention should focus on those factors that have been assessedas being crime related. A substantialbody of evidencesuggests that for intervention to be effective with young people exhibiting problematic offending behaviour certain 'dynamic risk factors' or 'criminogenic needs' require to be addressed(Andrews et al

1990:3 74). Theseare "..factors that haveplayed a causal or contributory role in an offending act, and that would place the offender at risk of reoffending" (McGuire 1995:40). Being dynamic they shouldbe amenableto changeand require to be identified by practitionersand addressedthrough supervisionto facilitate changein young people(Raynor 1998).The 'most promising intermediatetargets'for change(Andrews et al 1990:375) include:

e Changinganti-social attitudes, feelings andpeer associations

e Promotingfamilial affection, monitoring and supervision

* Promotingprotection

e Developingpositive social role models

* Increasingself control, self managementand problem solving skills

* Replacingskills of lying, stealingand aggression with pro-socialalternatives

e Reducinguse of chemical substances

o Shifting the rewards and costs associatedwith offending behaviour towards non-

criminal activities involving family, educationand work

e Ensuringthe young personcan recogniserisky situationsand developingplans to deal

with them

* Confronting personal and circumstantialbarriers through effective,service outcomes

(adaptedfrom Andrews et al 1990;Whyte 2004)

72 Responsivity refers to the principle that workers and clients should be matched, taking accountof the wide variety of learning styles andmethods. Specific attentionshould be given to the level of risk presentedby membersin group programmesas the mixing of peoplewith different risk levels in one group can in itself be criminogenic (Andrews et al 1990).

Generally methods that help people are participatory, in that people can engagewith the worker, rather than just being lectured to (Moore & Whyte 1998). The client / worker relationshipis an integral part of any effective social work intervention,and shouldbe no less so in offender work. Trotter (1999) has highlighted this relationship as being crucial in the successof work with involuntary clients and it has recently been reiterated by a Scottish

ExecutiveSocial Work InspectionAgency report (McNeill et al 2005).

Evidence also points to the greater effectivenessof intervention when it is based in the communityand when programmesare multi-modal, ensuringthat:

"Supervision should target several offending needs and not rely on a single

intervention method.It does not imply that all supervision needsto be provided in a

single structuredprogramme" (Underdown 1998:44).

Underdowncontinues by statingthat programmesshould have stated aims that are linked to the methodsbeing used by appropriatelytrained, resourced, supported and skilled staff

ensuringthat theintervention is structured,monitored and evaluated.

Continuing researchhas reiteratedthese principles but with a strongerfocus on:

73 "The needfor practitioners to useinterpersonal skills and exercisesome discretion, on

the need to take diversity into account,and on the importance of the broader service

contextin supportingeffective intervention " (Raynor 2004: 201).

While theseprinciples have been associatedwith effective practice there are a number of interventionsthat havebeen associatedwith poor outcomes.These include interventionswith low risk offendersand incorrectmatching of serviceto need,unstructured counselling, group approacheswith no link or focus to offending needs,poorly targeted academic/vocational approaches,scared straight programmes (eg taking young peopleinto prisons to shock them), increasingself esteemin isolation, focusing on vague emotional / personalcomplaints and improving living conditions in isolation of the above criminogenic needs.(Andrews et al

1990; Andrews 1995). Chapman and Hough (1998) also add poor management and organisationalsupport to these.

In the fifteen yearssince the 'what works' agendawas first adoptedin Englandand Wales the

evidencebase has increasinglybeen questionedand there havebeen concerns raised aboutits

wholesaleadoption in the UK (Furniss andNutley 2000; Merrington and Stanley2000). It is

'evidence' is "highly dubiousbasis for suggestedthat the selectiveand ... provides a reform"

(Muncie 2002:27). Even within Home Office researchpapers there hasbeen cautionarynotes

regardingthe extent of thesuccess in reducingreoffending because:

--the researchliterature doesnot demonstratethat cognitive-behaviouralapproaches,

or indeed, any other type of approach, routinely produce major reductions in

reoffendingamong a mixedpopulation of offenders" (Vennardet al 1997:33).

74 The focus on reducingoffending as the primary criterion of successis criticised as being too narrow, not leastbecause of the difficulty in obtaining reliable reoffendingdata (Merrington and Stanley 2000). Other intermediate measuressuggested as being important include complying with supervisionrequirements, improvements in attitude and motivation, reducing the frequency or seriousnessof offending (Underdown 1998; Chapmanand Hough 1998), gaining employmentor returning to education,improvement in wider social skills, improved relationshipsand improved health and lifestyle (Farrall 2002; Worrall andMawby 2004).

It is increasinglybeing suggestedthat after many yearsof the 'what works' agendasteering work with offendersit is "too early to say what works, what doesn't, and what is promising"

(Merrington and Stanley 2004:7), not least becauseof the narrow focus of evidence on texperimental' paradigms of enquiry (Bateman and Pitts 2005). There is a recognition, however, that "sometimes,with somepeople, in some circumstances,for somereason, some things work" (Pitts 1992:134). With increasedquestioning of the theoreticalbasis of evidence for effective practice, increasing attention is being given to what the actual circumstances, reasons and 'things' are and the importance of more qualitative research techniques in identifying them. Thesehave begun to be identified in the 'desistance'literature which seeks to elucidate the processesby which former offenders can change (Maruna 2001) and questionsnow being askedare what works, who it Workswith and why it works (McNeill et al 2005).

Desistancefrom offending behaviour

Desistanceis "what practitioners in the field of offenderprogramming and treatment want

clients to do - and right away" (Martma 2000:11). It differs slightly from the 'what works'

75 rehabilitation discourse,focussing on why people desist from a careerof offending, rather than what can be done to them through 'treatment.' There is, however, an increasingcall for combining the two discoursesto supportthe searchfor effectivenessin work with offenders

(Maruna 2001; McNeill 2003b; Rex 1999).Maruna (2001) also arguesthat what is required is a body of researchwhich practitionerscan more readily apply to their work with offenders to reach the point where change can be properly encouraged,taking account both of an improvement in reasoningskills and paying attention to the social environmentsin which they can makereasoned decisions about desisting (Rex 1999).

McNeill and Batchelor (2004:62) suggestthat "interventions with young people must be grounded,strategically andpractically, in an understandingof the wider social contextsboth of offendingand desistance" to better inform understandingof the changeprocesses involved for the young people. A Scottishstudy by Jamiesonet al (1999) identified a number of these contextual factors related to desistance.These included the potential consequencesof offending and the desire not to upset their families, increasedmaturity and changesin peer associations,securing employment, forming a relationship and leaving home. For older people family responsibilities and lifestyle changes(eg drug use) were a contributory factor

in theirdecisions to desist.

Grahamand Bowling (1995)and Flood-Pageet al (2000)undertook extensive research for

the Home Office in Englandand Wales looking at the offending behaviour of young people.

While not specifically desistancestudies they found that life changes,especially forming

intimate relationships and gaining employment, were associatedwith desistance.Marriage

and employmenthave consistentlybeen related to desistanceand Laub and Sampson(2003)

in their longitudinalstudy of criminalcareers, found that these,together with military service

76 and least amount of involvement with the justice system, were the four factors most associatedwith a reductionin offending.35

Peoplewho aremore successfulin their desireto desisthave generally been found to be more positive in their belief that they can actually do so (Burnett 2000; Maruna 2002). There is a relationship betweenthe 'objective' factors(employment, partner, family) in a person's life and their 'subjective' belief that they can change becausethe factors are seen as being significant and positive (Farrall 2002). Consequently,McNeill and Batchelor (2004) suggest that the key factorsin desistanceare likely to be developingmaturity, life transitionsthat may increasesocial bonds and the narrativesthat individuals apply to these events,that is: "it is not just the eventsand changesthat matter; it is what thesechanges and eventsmean to the people involved" (McNeill and Batchelor 2004: 61). McNeill and Batchelor suggestthat the focus of interventionshould be how practitionerswork with young peopleto supportchange, work that may include approachesdirectly addressingoffending behaviour(Burnett 2000).

Crucial to work with people and the likelihood of it being successfulis the relationship that exists betweenthe worker and the young person(Farrall 2002; Batchelor and McNeill 2005;

Rex 1999;Trotter 1999).Studies focusing on worker-client relationshipsindicate that change in offendingbehaviour is more likely to be successfulif there is trust and understanding betweenparticipants in the relationship.While Trotter'swork is not predicatedon desistance it createsa finther link betweenthe desistanceand 'what works' researchwith its focuson the supervisoryrelationship, rather than the programmeitself (McNeill and Batchelor 2004).

Trotter (1999) details the principles of effective practice in respect to forming positive relationshipswith serviceusers to facilitate change:

35Employment related programmeswere found to have one of the biggest reductions in reoffending in the what works Ineta-analysisof I, osel (1995).

77 * Role clarification - the need for frequentdiscussion about the professionals'role and

reasonfor intervention.

* Pro-social modelling and reinforcement- the need for professionalsto identify and

model the positive behaviours,they arewanting to promote

* Problem solving - identity the problemsand work towardsthem

e Relationships- professionalsneed to have an open and honestrelationship with the

serviceuser

Rather than a focus on the technical aspectsof the work (Pitts 1992),understanding of the complex processesinvolved in changerequires a professionaland knowledgeableworkforce drawingon wider theoreticaldiscourses and an ability to developrelationships with young people. McKeown (2000) has found that the two most important aspectsof facilitating changeare the characteristicsof the serviceuser and the relationshipwith the worker. These characteristicscan be identified by an appropriateassessment process which is an important feature of both the 'what works' and desistanceliterature. A professional assessment identifying thesecomplex and varied factors, and subsequentmatching of servicesto needs, is a key featureof work in theseareas, without which any interventionis unlikely to be successful(McNeill et al 2005).

Assessment

Scotlandhas seenthe emergenceof the YLS/CMI and Asset risk assessmentfiwneworks as the two tools recognisedby the Scottish Executive for use with young people involved in offendingbehaviour. The decisionabout which frameworkto employrests with eachlocal

78 authority area.The YLS designedby Hoge and Andrews (2001) is the youth version of the

LSI-R (Andrews and Bonta 1996). Asset is an assessmenttool developedin England and

Wales in responseto the commissioningby the Youth JusticeBoard of an instrumentto meet the needsof the new Youth Offending Temns to assessrisk of reoffending (see Baker et al

2002).Asset is increasinglybeing favouredby youthjustice teamsin Scotlandas it allows the young personto be more directly involved in the assessmentprocess (McNeill andBatchelor

2004), althoughits employmenton a national basis is a long way off as both the YLS/CMI and Assetare in the processof being 'Scotified'. Asset hasbeen standardisedon an England and Walespopulation and a number of studieshave now assessedits validity, reliability and use south of the border (Baker et al 2002; Baker 2004). At the time of writing the levels of

risk and 'scoring'bands in usein Scotlandremain those applicable to theEnglish and Wales

populations. The Criminal Justice Social Work Development Centre is collating data to

provide a Scottishdatabase. 36

Despite its increasinguse, standardisedrisk assessmentis far from an exact scienceand has

been describedas a 'good guess' (Kemshall 1996a), with longstandingconcerns about the

ability to accurately predict risk (Lab and Whitehead 1990). These good guessescan be

enhancedto a judgementby combiningstatistically based actuarial method of assessment

with clinical assessmentsutilising credibleinformation and datafrom a numberof sources 1996b)37 'Third have been developed (Kemshall . generation' approachesto risk assessment

to combineclinical and actuarial methods with thedynamic criminogenic needs noted earlier

in an attempt to individualise risk assessments(McNeill et al 2005). Assessmenttools, like

Asset, attemptthis combination althoughthey are still subjectto criticism becauseit rein i

I TheCriminal Justice Social Work DevelopmentCentre is a joint venturebetween the Universitiesof Edinburghand Stirling to Promote, anddisseminate evidence about best practice with young people and adults involved in offendingbehaviour. 31Actuarial factors include age, age at first conviction,sex, number of previousconvictions / custodialsentences. Clinical assessment iCs th professionaljudgement of theworker.

79 a statisticalaggregate, with no indication that any particularindividual will reoffend(McNeill and Batchelor2004).

Feeley and Simon (1992) also suggestedthat the emphasison actuarial assessmentsand resulting prograrnmeswas dehumanising individuals to 'aggregates' as part of a 'new penology.' As part of the managementof offendersthis new penology targetedthose assessed as being most risk to the public and placedunder surveillancethose assessedas lessrisky. A major issue with this policy is that risk assessmenttools are even more limited in their usefulnessas predictorsof harm (McNeill et al 2005). Given that the assessmentof risk is the cornerstoneof the searchfor effective interventionsand despiteits increasinguse it remainsa controversialissue, not least becauseit focuseson aggregatesand 'types' of people (Maruna

2001:6).

Despite substantialcriticisms of the 'new penology' and the questioningof its use as a basis for reform (Muncie 2002), there are a number of widely acceptedprinciples that appearto contribute to a reduction in offending behaviour. Theseprinciples, combined with findings

from the desistanceliterature, have resultedin an increasedrecognition that "..factors associated with offending among young people are complex, varied and defy simplistic solutions" (Jamiesonet al 1999:x). Solutionsare unlikely to be foundin anyone approach or

method (Underdown 1998) and the "multiple pathways to desistance" (Laub and Sampson

2003:278) indicate that any interventions with young people may be most effectively delivered via a multi-agencyapproach, preferably outwith a justice setting (Goldson 2005b).

The interventions of any one of a number of agencies, identified through a thorough assessmentprocess that doesnot only take accountof risk factorsbut focuseson building and sustainingrelationships, may provide the help and supportyoung peoplerequire.

80 WORKING TOGETHER IN MULTI-AGENCY PARTNERSHIPS

Whatever the political discourse and criminological theories underpinning interventions, partnership working is now firmly embeddedin policy rhetoric and frameworks through

,joined up' governmentintegrating the delivery of related services.There is a long history of collaboration, inter-agency and partnershipworking in the health and social care settings

(Payne2000) and in criminal justice (Crawford 1997; Gibbs 2001a). However, this history hasnot always beenpositive, with progresson interprofessionalworking being patchy (Irvine et al 2002), often with a great deal of rhetoric but little action (Ovretveit 1997), and with much friction just below the surfaceof formal partnerships(Crawford 1997).

Within the field of offending behaviour,while there have long been strong links betweenthe probation servicesand the voluntary sector, the move towards more formalised purchaser- provider models began in the 1990s (Gibbs 1998; 2001a). Prior to this the focus of multi- agencywork tendedto be on crime preventionstrategies (Crawford and Jones1995; Pearson et al 1992; Sampsonet al 1988). As discussedabove, these more formalised partnerships have been linked to the introduction of a corporatist,managerialist approach to public sector govemance.

However, despite the centralised consensusabout multi-agency working it is likely that organisationshave differing views on the conceptthey are embracingbecause:

"There can be no simple assumption that all agencies will necessarily share the

government'scommitment, either to partnershipsor to its broaderobjectives for the

81 criminal justice system or other aspects of social policy" (James & Bottomley

1994:167).

While partnershipsand multi-agencyworking are generallyviewed positively by government there is little researchand empirical 'evidence' to reach a conclusion that past policies failed becauseof a lack of partnershipsor that new arrangementshave improved outcomes(Holman

2005; Jamesand Bottomley 1994; Ling 2000) In many arenassuccess in achieving multi- agency partnershipshas proved elusive (Irvine et al 2002; Cook et al 2001). This lack of

'evidence' is particularly ironic given the focus of the new governanceon evidence-based practice.

Wherethere is 'evidence'it hastended to focuson how well differentagencies work together and shareinformation, rather than any outcomesfrom the collaboration(Blagg 2000; Blagg and Smith 1989). Where there have been indications of 'failed' multi-agency working is in child protection enquirieswhere the absenceof sharedinformation systems,communication and information sharing and collaboration has been identified as a contributory factor in the failings (see Marshall et al 1999; Laming 2003). Glennie (2003) claims it is now a widely acceptedview that effective work in child protection requiresinterprofessional. co-operation as recommendedby theseenquiries, and there appearsto be a belief that "work with young offendersis essentiallya multi-disciplinary activity" (Bell et al 1995:v).

Away from the political discourse driving the increase in multi-agency and partnership working, a substantialtheoretical frarnework underpins the concept of joint working. This fi-ameworkincludes various theories aboutlevels of inter agencyworking and documentsthe

82 confusion and misunderstandingthat often exists about meaningsand definitions of such working practices.

Cooperationtheory (Loxley 1997) or coordinationpolicy (Payne2000), assumesthat better

results arc achievedwhen organisationswork together, as long as there is reciprocity and durableworking relationships.This policy stems from governmentattempts to unite services where:

"The galvanisingforce behind interprofessionalcollaboration has been the perceived

need to rationalise resourcesthrough coordinating, integrating and merging services,

organisations or even some of the professionals themselves [so that today]

has become force, by ....collaboration a powerful spearheaded the government's modernisationprogramme to further partnership working across the health and social

care services" (Leathard2003 a: 10)

Unfortunately, within this theoreticalbackground there is much confusionbecause words are

often used interchangeablyto describe different ways of working together, resulting in a

'terminological quagmire' (Leathard2003a: 5). Payne(2000) highlights three terms that may

be oftenused interchangeably in official documents:

a Coordination- describesthe needto achievebetter relationships between the objectives

andorganisation of different agencies

m Collaboration - refers to people in different agenciesand servicesworking together to

improve coordinationin practice

83 a Partnership - describes collaboration where there is a long-term agreement about

coordinationand planning, often betweendifferent sectorsof provision eg probation and

voluntary organisations.It can alsobe betweenprofessionals and serviceusers. 38

Scottish Executive documentsappear to prefer the term partnershipsin describing multi- agency working practices (Scottish Executive 1999a; 2000), although whether the same meanings are ascribed is not clear. Payne (2000) has further identified four patterns of working togetherwhich havedeveloped in multi-agencywork andwhich again canbe readily transferredto the youthjustice setting in Scotland.

Keyworker coordination refers to practice where a professional from one agency is responsiblefor the serviceto the client, but often refersto, or calls on the involvementof others. In the criminal justice setting this may be the supervisingofficer of a probation order who contacts colleaguesin other areasover specific issueseg housing or welfare benefits.

This can be underminedby professionalautonomy, which has been one of the factors cited for difficulties in developingpartriership working at the operationallevel (Irvine et al 2002).

This presumedhindrance of autonomy presumably underpins the government'spreference for blurring of roles in partnershipworking (Payne2000) and the deprofessionalisationof the workforce (Pitts 1992).

Strategiccoordination involves agencies collaborating at a seniorlevel to ensureplanning is correctly co-ordinated.This pattern usually involves service delivery and funding and does not necessarilymean that professionalswork together.An exampleof this in criminal justice social work is the criminal justice groupings formed in responseto the Tough Options

I T'his is the definition adoptedin this thesisas it representsreasonably closely the working practicein Falkirk betweenthe various agencies and as Paynesuggests encompasses coordination andcollaboration.

84 consultationspaper (Scottish Office 1998b).For example,the Forth Valley Criminal Justice grouping comprisingof Falkirk, Stirling and ClackmannanshireCouncils was the catalyst for the Forth Valley Youth Justice Strategy Group that had strategicoverview of youth justice servicesin Falkirk (seeChapter Four).

Informal collaborationoccurs when informal networksacross agencies are formed becauseof a sharedclient in touch with various services.This has probably beenthe most commonway of working togetherpreviously in social work, especially in authoritieswhere social workers shareoffices with other local authority workers. A lack of strategicmanagement decisions and structurescan block more formal collaboration(Payne 2000).

Payne's final pattern of partnershipworking relates to multi-professional services, where professionals from different backgrounds often come together to address difficult tasks, especiallywhen there is a high degreeof risk involved as in child protection.

Another useful typology that complementsthat of Payne's is provided by Atkinson et al

(2002). In a study encompassinghealth and social servicesthey identified five types of multi- agencyaffangements:

e Decision making group - professionalsfrom various agenciesmeet to discussissues

andmake decisions

9 Consultation and training -a multi-agency forum provides consultation and training

for other teaxnsand professionals

9 Centrebased delivery -a range of professionalsand agenciesare gatheredtogether in

one place to deliver a more co-ordinatedand competentservice

85 * Co-ordinateddelivery - pulls togetherdifferent agencies,usually by the appointment of a co-ordinator

e Operational-teamdelivery - professionalsfrom different agencieswork togetheron a

day to day basisto form a multi-agencyteam to deliver servicesdirectly to clients

Whateverdefinition or model of multi-agencyworking is adoptedthere are a number of key factorsthat havebeen identified that will contributeto the successof the arrangements.These include a commitment to the philosophy, an understandingof the roles and responsibilities

(team and individual), common aims and objectives, good communicationand information sharing, effective leadershipor drive at the strategic level, involving relevant personnel, adequatefunding and resources,good working relationshipsand having sufficient time to do the work (Atkinson et al 2002). Theseare also seenas key challengesthat could hinder the successof multi-agency arrangements,although it is difficult to generaliseto the various types of arrangements.

There are various combinations of models and typologies for multi-agency working which are often representedas ladders,continuums, circles, jigsaws or other systemrepresentations

(see Gardner 2003; Leathard 2003b). Locating present youth justice practice with any particularone, or with any one definitionfrom official documentswould be a difficult task.

In reality partnershipis a multi-faceted concept,ranging from unitary purposeprojects with two partners to multi-agency partnershipswith many goals that works on different levels

(Omaji 2003) including managerial,practitioner, community and service user (Gibbs 1998;

1999).It is likely that any of thesedefinitions may be usedin the discussionof partnershipsat any one time, althoughit is important to identify which is being referredto (Cross 1997).39

" Appendix3 presents in diagramform the complex partnersbip arrangements in Falkirk and defines the terms used in thisdwsis.

86 Partnerships with service users

Due to the nature of the public sector organisationsthat partnershiptheories are concerned with, the role of the serviceuser is important in the processalthough they are often forgotten

(Gibbs 1999). When working together for the benefit of a third party, interventionsare less likely to be effective if serviceusers do not have a strong part in initial negotiationsand are not involved in the process,because professionals may develop servicesthat benefit their own agenda(Loxley 1997; Payne2000). The role of the serviceuser and their importancein the partnershipliterature reflects the findings relating to the importanceof relationshipsin achieving successfuloutcomes in social work supervision(Rex 1999; Trotter 1999; McNeill et al 2005).

The inclusion of the serviceuser would appearto be an important part of any multi-agency agreements,although Crawford (1997) seesthis as part of the managerialistagenda in the prevention of crime where 'consumer sovereignty' is hailed as paramount.In the field of youth / criminaljustice there can be muchdebate about who themajor stakeholders, or users, are.Do youth and criminaljustice socialwork servicesprovide a serviceto the courts,the public, theoffender, a combinationof these,or all? All areusers of the serviceand there may bean argumentthat all shouldbe involved in theprocesses of servicedevelopment. 40

Whichever multi-agency model(s) is practiced, coordination for the service user is vital if work is to be successful.With respectto young people as service userswho are involved in the youth justice system, and who may have multiple needs and offending behaviour,

I Robertsonand McClintock (1996) define 'service user' as encompassing young people, partner agencies, the community and the public.

87 successfulinterventions are likely to be multi-modal and multi-systemic involving personnel from a number of agencies(McNeill et al 2005). It should be the role of the casemanager to co-ordinatethese services for the young person,a challengingrole requiring knowledge and skills, the complexity of which hasbeen reiterated on numerousoccasions and cannotbe over estimated(McNeill and Batchelor 2004). Reflecting the discussion above about who is actually the service user, Burnett and Appleton (2004) and Robinson and Dignan (2004) considercase management as a method of co-ordinating servicesto meet the demandsof a managerialframework in addition to promoting a continuousrelationship with young people.

The case manager,or keyworker role, is an areaof partnershipworking most practitioners will be familiarwith.

Case management

Merrington and Stanley (2004) have suggestedthat good case managementmay be more important than the actual interventions in effecting change in people. Certainly, the case manageris crucial in the assessmentprocess, in identifying the appropriateintervention for the young person,maintaining relationshipsthroughout the changeprocess and guiding the client through the various 'pathways' (Owetveit 1997) availablein multi-agencyworking. In the youth justice context casemanagement is very much at an embryonicstage, while in other areasof socialwork and mentalhealth it is more established,although there is no standard definition(Partridge 2004). Case management in the field of mentalhealth and socialcare is defined as a "client-centred approach to the coordination of services to meet the needsof vulnerable individuals" (Davies 2000: 44). Within offending servicesit is defined as:

88 "The staffing structures and organisational processes in place to co-ordinate and

integrate all aspectsof communitysupervision, from the initial offenderrisk and need

assessment,through to programme delivery and the intendedcompletion of the order" (Partridge2004: 4).

Thesedefinitions give someindication of the varying approachesto the managementof cases and the difficulty there may be in identifying any one model of practice. These two definitions also bring together the care versus control debatesurrounding youth justice in

Scotland.The Davies quote is groundedin a welfare perspective,while Partridge adoptsa justice definitionfocussing on risk andneed, programme delivery and completion of orders.

The managerialagenda ftu-ther impinges on casemanagement by viewing it as a method of managinga large number of people(Mair 2004).

In Scotland, probation supervision has historically taken an individual, unstructured, counselling / welfare approach (McIvor & Barry 1998). While the role of 'traditional' caseworkis often questionedin an evidencedbased enviromnent, increasingly researchers are suggestingthat a structuredcasework approach can, and should, be part of a programmeof supervision for offenders (Burnett 2004). The role of case managementis thought to be central to the effective implementationof an evidence-basedapproach to offender supervision(Chapman & Hough 1998; Underdown1998) and the two are often linked becauseof their systematicapproach to collecting, monitoring and using information (Burnett

& Appleton 2004). However, while an unstructured approachto supervision may not be beneficial, a traditional caseworkapproach is not necessarilynegated by casemanagement.

89 Developing an earlier typology of Levine and Fleming (1985), Partridge (2004) identified threemodels of casemanagement in her study of a numberof probationareas in Englandand

Wales:

* Specialist - in this model staff perform specific tasks, either assessment,programme

delivery, basic skills teaching etc. This model was found to be beneficial for senior

managementin co-ordinating service delivery and matching offenders with needs and

serviceswith a focus on efficiency and outputs. It is associatedwith a programmed,

evidence-basedapproach to servicedelivery where a client has contact with a number of

professionals,although there can be confusion for the client fi-om having contact with a

variety of serviceproviders.

* Generic- staff work with offenderson all their problemsand have a mixed caseloadin

relation to risk. This model is associatedwith the 'casework' approachand is perceivedas

enhancingstaff motivation, developingrelationship with clients, allowing staff to seethe

outcomesof their work, continuity of contact and clarity of the manager'srole.

* Hybrid - this model is a combination of specialistand generic.Partridge found that local

circumstancesrarely allowed a team to practice any one 'pure' model specifically and

service delivery was to a great extent dependent on local conditions, for example

resources,geography, staff qualifications and skills.

It is likely that in any one organisation.the casemanager will be on a continuumbetween

servicebroker andprovider, the key link betweenthe serviceuser and the servicesprovided.

Where they are positioned on the continuum will depend on the degree of managerialist principles implementedat the strategiclevel (Partridge2004).

90 In England and Wales ethnographicstudies of youth offending teams (Cross et al. 2003;

Burnett & Appleton 2004) have identified a shift in practice from a casework, generic approachwith young peoplewho offend, to one more associatedwith a specialistmodel. This changein practice, attributed to strategicpolicy direction and increasedfocus on evidence- basedpractice, has not alwaysbeen welcomedby professionals,especially those with a social work background.As Cross et al (2003:158) observed "the proposed movementtowards a

". This from the fact casemanagement model was..... viewed with somealarm alarm stemmed that workerswere attemptingto treatthe young people as 'children first' and build a working relationship with them, with case managementbeing perceived as a threat to forming

6meaningful' working relationships (Cross et al. 2003).41 Burnett (2004) has argued that casework,and relationshipbuilding, can be incorporatedinto a well managedstructured programmeif this method best meets the person's needs,suggesting that the criticisms of caseworkare predicatedon the assumptionof an unstructured,loose approachto supervision.

Extrapolating from this argument indicates that effective case management(generic) can include what hastraditionally beentermed casework and doesnot necessarilyinvolve the loss of relationship with a young person. In these instances the complexity of the case managementrole (McNeill andBatchelor 2004) becomesincreasingly apparent.

Barriers to effective multi-agency working

Potential barriers and challengesto effective multi-agency partnershipsare as varied as the different definitions, models and typologiesemployed to describethis way of working. There is not enoughspace to describeall of them here,but a number of comprehensiveand specific

41'Meaningful' wasnot defined, andit is assumedthat casemanagement was perceivedas mving towwds a specialist,and away frDm a generic,model.

91 texts detail the barriers, in addition to the benefits (Leathard 2003a; Weinstein et al 2003;

Atkinson et al 2002; Blagg et al 1988;Pearson et al 1992;Crawford 1997).

Sampsonet al (1988), based on their research in neighbourhoodsin inner London and

Lancashire,identified two dominant perspectivesof how the multi-agency approachwas

viewed - the 'benevolent' and 'conspiracy' perspectives.The conspiracyperspective views

the multi-agency approach as a 'bad thing' with inherent problems between the various

agenciesand with inter- and intra-agency conflicts inevitable. On the opposite side the

benevolentperspective adopts a corporatistversion of partnershipsbeing a vehicle for good

practice, implying unproblematic working relationships and agreement on aims and

objectives.

An increasein formalised partnershiparrangements in England and Wales in the field of

crime prevention during the 1980s was accompaniedby a rise in conflicts of ideology and

understanding(Sampson et al 1988;Smith et al 1993;Crawford & Jones1995; Gibbs 2001a).

WhIe the partnership approachbecame more popular little attention was directed at the

broader issuesof policy formation and implementation,and any accompanyingdifficulties,

such that Crawford & Jones (1995:17) arguedthat "there is a need to addressand

understandthe complexsocial processesinvolved in inter-agencycollaboration". These

socialprocesses and relationshipsare at theheart of effectivemulti-agency partnerships and

are likely to include the varying perceptionsand understandingof partnershipworking and

the aetiology and amelioration of offending behaviour. Closer attention to theseissues may

move the partnershipdebate beyond a simplistic statementthat multi-agency working is "a

worthy endto pursue" (Irvine et al 2002:199) andprovide a conceptualunderstanding of why

92 it may effectively addressoffending behaviour (as suggestedby the Youth Justice Board

2004a).

A common factor that occursin respectof barriers to effective partnershipsis the dominance of one agency or profession. With regardsto crime preventionstudies, conflict or potential for conflict, between the police and other agencieswas a major cause for concern due to differing views of crime prevention,or who was higher in the hierarchy of importancefor crime control (Sampsonet al 1988;Crawford & Jones1995; Sampson & Smith 1992).In the

YOT teamsin Englandand Wales, however, the dominanceof the police, althoughan initial concern,proved largely unfoundedand was not a major problem, with, in fact, youth justice workers becoming the dominant culture (Burnett and Appleton 2004). Molyneux (2001) identifiedthe lack of dominanceof oneprofession as crucialin facilitatinggood partnership working, which in respect to youth offending may prevent responsesto crime being dominatedby one profession. However, partnershipsmay also result in a dilution of theory andblurring of understanding,encouraging a drift to an atheoreticalcorporatist agenda.

Gender and race are areaswhere tension has also been identified in multi-agency work, creating the potential for discriminatory encountersbecause groups representingwomen's and ethnic minority issuesare often not included in formal multi-agencyforums (Sampsonet al.1988; Sampson & Smith 1992).The result of this is that informalnetworks have been built up thatcut acrossthe more formal initiatives. While informalnetworks can be important,it is in the mainstreamforums that the decisionswill be made and, as Ling (2000) stated, the corporatist agendafavours the strategiesof central government and the marginalisation.of groups with opposing views. Audit Scotland (2000) found that, despite the guidance issued by the Scottish Executive, minority groups were not representedto the same extent as the

93 main groups (for example local authorities, police and health) in youth justice decision making at the local level.

Confidentiality issueshave also beenidentified as an areaof conflict, which is contradictory to the smooth flow of information that was seen as a positive aspectof interagencywork

(Smith 2000b). Sampsonet al (1988) found that problemswere a result of agenciesworking by different conceptions of confidentiality. The human rights legislation may serve to standardisesome of thesedifferences as it becomesclearer what the limits of confidentiality are. Alternatively, increasedinformation sharingmay widen the control of young people as a variety of agencieshave accessto confidential data. Communicationand information sharing are closely linked with the potential problem of confidentiality issues, and have been identified as a key factor in the successor otherwiseof multi-agencyworking (Atkinson et al

2002) andmulti-professional teams (Molyneux 2001).

The barriers to partnershipworking that havebeen identified here can either help to resolve or be the causeof conflict, dependingon how the issuesare handledor perceivedby all involved. Recognition of, and dealing appropriatelywith, conflict is an important aspectof inter-agencywork (Crawford& Jones1995) and in justice issuesit is especiallypertinent as conflict is an inherentpart of the criminal justice process(Sampson et al 1988;Pearson et al

1992;Smith 2000b). The eradication of conflict may in fact not be a desirableoutcome and conflict shouldnot necessarilybe consideredas negative(Sampson et al. 1988;Sampson and

Smith 1992)because it "maybe the healthyand desirableexpression of differentinterests "

(Crawford& Jones1995: 31). Crawfordand Jonescontend that an importantfactor in inter agencyrelations is theway in which anyconflict is subsequentlymanaged and regulated, and that avoidanceof conflict cancreate many problems itself. Otherfindings suggest that many

94 practitionerswere aware of the possibility of conflict and that there was inevitability to it,

althoughthere was also a feeling that it could be resolved(Gibbs 2001a).

The various studies referred to in this section regarding barriers to effective partnership working have usually focussedon multi-agencypartnerships (strategic or operational).While

many of the barriers do seem to cross this definitional boundary it may be that barriers

operatedifferently dependingon the type of partnershipand at what level in the organisation

they are located. An example of the latter seemsto be the issue of communication,which

although a potential problem in a multi-agency partnership appears to improve where

different professionalsare operatingwithin the sameteaxn (Cook et al 2001).

Much of the pre 2000 researchinvestigating multi-agency work in crime andjustice focussed

on partnershipsand inter-agencyworking where the focus was on organisationsworking

together across professional, and sometimesideological boundaries, while remaining in

different servicedelivery teams. The focus of more recent research,especially in the areaof

youth justice (Cross et al 2003; Burnett and Appleton 2004; Bailey and Williams 2000

Holdaway et al 2001), has been on multi-professionalteams where various professionswork

in the same team.

Multi-professional teamwork

Payne(2000) describes'multi-professional teamwork' as a patternof:

95 "Collaboration betweenpeople in regular working relationships concernedwith the

samegroup of clients. Often they are peoplefrom different professionsor people with

different taskswithin an agencywork group. " (Payne2000: 27).

Aspects of multi-profcssional tcams that have been identified as improvements on other patterns of working include bringing together skills, sharing information, achieving continuity of service, apportioning and ensuring responsibility and accountability, coordinationin planning resourcesand coordinationin delivering resourcesfor the benefit of clients (Payne2000). Additionally, the multi-professionalteam offers an immediateexchange of knowledge,ideas and skills (Atkinson et al 2002), decisionmaking can be improved (Cook et al 2001) andprovision can becomemore client-focussed(Lowe and O'Hara 2000).

However, there is an assumption that multi-professional teams will always work more efficiently, when in practice this is not the case(Farrell et al 2001), and there are few studies that investigatemulti-professional teams that fail (Freeth2001). An importantissue for multi- professional teamsis the clash of cultures that may ensue(Irvine et al 2002), with resultant disagreementsand discussionsof roles and responsibilities.Within YOTs in Englandand

Wales, Burnett and Appleton (2004) identified the blurring of roles and agencyboundaries as problematicI because workers were secondedand sometimesprofessionally managed outwith thetemn.

Notwithstanding some of the problems, and issues of definition, in many respectsmulti- professionaltewnwork can be seenas an extension,or the pinnacle,of partnershipsand inter- agency working, to meet policy objectives that otherwise may result in organisations, pursuing their own priorities (Payne2000). While multi-professionalteamwork hasits origins

96 in healthcare(Payne 2000) and there is a long history of partnership and multi-agency

working in criminal justice (Crawford 1997; Gibbs 2001a), the multi-professional team

approachin crime andjustice arenas,involving various professionsin one service delivery

team, is a relatively new phenomenon.In England and Wales the multi-professionalyouth justice team is now enshrinedin legislation (Crime and Disorder Act 1998), where it is a

legal requirementfor local authoritiesto havein placeteams including personnelfrom police,

probation, social services,education and health. It remainsto be seenif this policy initiative

is, like in the health service,seen as "indiscriminately" (Irvine et al 2002:208) encouraging

teamworkwith little evidenceof viability because:

"It shouldnot be assumedthat instructingworkers to collaboratewith eachother in

theinterests of thosethey serve will besufficient to bring abouteffective teams able to

improveservices " (Irvine et al 2002:202).

With the establishmentof YOTs the governmenthas demonstrateda commitment to multi-

professionalteamwork as the future for youth justice in Englandand Wales.Regarding their

efficacy in preventingoffending, the results to date are mixed (Holdaway et al 2001; Feizler

et al 2004) even though the Youth JusticeBoard (2004a)was clear that strong youth

offendingteams prevent offending. Mixed findingsreflect the views mentionedearlier about

the lack of empirical evidenceabout partnerships(James and Bottomley 1994; Ling 2000).

However,Holdaway et al (2001:114) did concludethat "YOTshave demonstrated the value

ofjoined up working at both policy and practice levels." While there is emergingevidence

regarding the ability of multi-professional teamsto addressoffending by young people it is

perhapsstill too early to statethey are more effective in reducing offending rates, or if any

successis actually dueto the multi-professionalaspect of the teams.

97 PARTNERSHIP POLICY IN SCOTLAND

As discussedin Chapter Two, youth justice policy and practice in Scotland diverged from that in England and Wales during the 1960s following the publication of the Kilbrandon

Report. Since that time, youth justice (Smith 2000a; Whyte 2004b) and, to a lesserextent, criminal justice policies (Barry 2000; McIvor 2004; McNeill 2004) have followed a much more welfare oriented approachthan England and Wales, located, as they are, in the local authority social work departments.However, as in England and Wales, the election of the present Labour government in 1997, followed by the Scottish Parliament elections, have heraldeda movetowards justice systemsencompassing the corporatist, managerial agenda:

"The Governmentare committed to an inclusive approach to criminal justice. This

relies on successfidcollaboration betweenGovernment, the professionals upon whom

the system relies and the communitiesand individuals who make up Scotland today.

Partnership at all stagesof the process - ftom the protection of the public ftom those

who commit crime; to prevention by tackling circumstancesthat encouragecrime in

the first place; to supportfor victims of crime andfor offenderswho are prepared to

change- is the key to the Government'sapproach " (Scottish Office 1999 section4.1).

This messagewas reinforcedby Jim Wallace,the then Deputy First Minister and Minister for

Justice,in his foreword in the 2001 white paper 'Making ScotlandSafer' in which he stated:

"Our aim as an Executive is to promote the safety and security of individuals and

communities.But this is not a taskfor the criminaIjustice systemalone. The reduction

98 of crime and the promotion of a responsiblesociety is an objective to which a wide

range of agenciesand influencescontribute: our schools;parents; thepress; our social

policies designedto create opportunityand employment" (Scottish Executive2001 d: 1).

Referenceto responsibilities,partnerships and communities are clearly evident in thesepolicy statementswhich, althoughnot aimed at youth justice specifically, createdthe wider policy foundationsthat becameevident in the 2000 Youth Crime Review (Scottish Executive2000).

Thesestatements also resonate with the contentof the Kilbrandon Report(SHHD 1964) forty years ago, which also talked about working together to help and support young people.

Partnershipworking has for many years been a cornerstoneof Scottish policy, it is the managerialaspects of it in an increasinglypunitive atmospherethat is new.

Youth justice provision is located in the wider government initiatives to improve communities across Scotland through Community Safety Partnerships. Since local governinent reorganisation in 1996 all Scottish local authorities began developing

Community Safety Partnerships,the majority of which have been set up since 1998 (Audit

Scotland2000). 'Safer Communitiesin Scotland'(Scottish Executive 1999a)contained detailedguidance for their successfulimplementation and subsequent policy guidelineshave been clear in the need for youth justice policy to link in with the wider Community Safety

Plans:

19 we recognise that no one agency or organisation has all the answers, so the

formation of powerful yet practical partnerships provides the meansfor sustained

involvementfrom all membersof our communitiesand the agencieswhich serve these

communities" (Scoth Executive 1999a:foreword).

99 The partnershipsestablished in Scotland were intendedto createsafer communitiesthrough the involvementof public organisations,the private sector and voluntary bodies. This was to includethe involvementof four key statutoryagencies, the local authority, police, health and fire service but with considerationalso given to the private sector, voluntary sector, racial equality / community relationscouncil andhousing associations(Scottish Executive 1999a).

Reducing crime, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour featured highly in the range of community safety problems needing to be addressed(Audit Scotland 2000), with auditing and effective managementbeing key factors in meeting these needs (Scottish Executive

1999a).

The policy framework in thesedocuments reflected the corporatistmanagerial agenda of the

Labour govenunent in England and Wales stating that "effective partnerships have been recognisedas a central mechanismfor improving safety and reducing risk in communities"

(Audit Scotland2000: 1). A review of progressacross Scotland found that Community Safety

Partnershipswere developingbut were at different stagesand were struggling to move from strategy into planned, programmed preventive work connected to mainstream service delivery(Hewitt et al.2004). Despitethese struggles partnership rhetoric has increasedand there has beenan introductionof youth justice initiativesthat havemirrored, to a certain extent,developments south of theborder, which mayindicate the belief that the Englishand

Welshinitiatives are seenas positivemodels (Burnett and Appleton2004; Fullwood and

Powell 2004).

100 Operational partnerships in youth and criminal justice

In Scotland,within youth and criminal justice systems,partnership arrangements have been much in evidence at a local and national level for a number of years with Sacro, NCH,

Barnardo's and Apex being particularly prominent. These voluntary sector agencieshave provided a number of servicesin conjunction with local authoritiesfor both young peopleand adultsinvolved in offending behaviour.In the criminal justice field the partnershipsbetween some local authorities and Apex has been a reasonablysuccessful one on a national basis regarding SupervisedAttendance Orders (Levy & McIvor 2001). The Getting Best ResultS42 criminal justice policy had a number of pathfinder projects, in different areasof the country, where good practicewas being actively promotedthrough additional resources (Scottish

Executive 1999b; 2001b; 2001c). The pathfinders in some areas involved partnerships between different agencies, for example the Glasgow City Council, NCH and Apex arrangements(see Barry et al 2002). Local authority criminal justice social work servicesat presentwork closely togetherregarding the funding of servicesfollowing the Tough Options review (Scottish Office 1998b) and a current consultation is seeking to create other partnershipsto developcriminal justice servicesftuther (ScottishExecutive 2005e).

Specificto youthjustice the FreagarrachProject (Lobley at al 2001) in theForth Valley area, andthe CueTen Project (Lobley& Smith 1999)in Fife are bothpositive examples of inter- agencyworking in the youthjustice field.43 These projects have specifically been mentioned by governmentas demonstratingthe advantagesof co-ordinated,inter-agency working

(Scottish Office 1999). The partnershipproject in Glasgowbetween NCH, Apex and

11GettinS Best Resultswas a policy initiative establishedby the Scottish Executiveto promote the 'what works' agendain Scotland. 43The FreagarrachProject is discussedin ChapterFour. The CueTenProject wasbased in Fifc working on employmentrelated skills.

101 Glasgow City Council has been found to be successfulin engagingwith and reducing the offending of young people (Barry et al 2002). Sawyer (2000) reported on a multi-agency project in Fife involving Sacro,the local Reporter'soffice, police and socialwork department that had strong supportin the local area.The history of partnershipworking in youth justice in Scotlandhas provided some evidenceof positive outcomesand it is set to continue as a central featureof ScottishExecutive policy.

21"t century youth justice partnership policy

The 21" century policy initiatives for dealing with young people commencedwith the publication of 'It's a Criminal Waste' (Scottish Executive2000), which detailedgovernment expectationsof the various agenciesinvolved in youth justice service delivery. Clearly identified in this review was the need for strategicmulti-agency teams to co-ordinateservices for young peopleinvolved in offending behaviour.Decisions about actualrepresentation, and links with Community SafetyPlans, were left to the local areasdependent on need,although the review suggestedthat:

"Representationshould be drawnfrom thefollowing agencies:social work education

(including community education), housing, leisure and recreation, police, health,

children's reporter, procurator fiscal, voluntary sector organisations,panels, courts,

prison " (Scottish Executive2000: 8).

Sincethe Review was published in 2000 there havebeen a number of policy documentsand

audit reports that have continually pointed to the need for partnership approachesand

improved managementto deliver effective youth justice services.The Audit Scotland (2001)

102 report was explicit in the belief that the effectivenessof the youth justice systemwould be enhancedby performanceaudits concentratingon processesand financial arrangements.

Most of theseprocesses related to the 'outputs' rather than the 'outcomes' (Garland 1996) and are an indication of the managerialistagenda for economy,efficiency and effectiveness with which auditsare linked andwhich form the mainstayof presentyouth justice partnership policies.

Scotland's Action Programmeto Reduce Youth Crime (Scottish Executive 2002d) further encapsulatedthe corporatist managerialagenda by identifying as one of its key areasthe ftniher developmentof the community safety programmesand of closer links and working arrangementsbetween various agenciesincluding social work, education,youth work, mental health and leisure. National Standardsfor Scotland's Youth Justice Serviceswere introduced in 2002 with Cathy Jamieson,the then Minister for Education and Young People, clearly statingthat "all agencieshave a responsibility to work togetherto deliver the changesneeded to meetthe Standards" (Scottish Executive2002a: 1).

There is little doubt that in Scotland there is a clear commitment from the Executive to ftu-therpromote partnership working to reduce the number of young people involved in offending behaviour.Statements in the various policy documentssuggest that the Executive's agendafor youth justice is built on the 'Third Way' approachof New Labour with, in addition to the focus on partnerships,an increasein auditing and managerialistapproaches.

Partnershipsin youth justice in Scotlandmay not be as formalised as in England and Wales but they are being encouragedas part of Scotland's modernisation. There has been no legislation in Scotlandto dictate the compositionof servicedelivery teams in a similar way to the YOTs in Englandand Wales, althoughmulti-professional operational teams are now

103 becomingmore common. Insteadguidance has been limited to the possible compositionof local youthjustice strategygroups, even then without the force of legislation.

To date the Scottish Executivehas also avoidedthe overly punitive rhetoric emanatingfrom

England and Wales, although it is increasing(Whyte 2004b). Despite constantreference to responsibilitiesand dealing with young offenders appropriately,within the samedocuments there has been some commitmentto an inclusive youth justice policy taking accountof the needsof young people. Whateverthe rhetoric of the Executive, a commitment to a welfare model hasbeen reiteratedconclusively by those involved directly in work with young people

(Stevensonand Brotchie 2004) ensuring that, at the moment, the welfare / justice debate remainsprominent in Scotlandas the 'what works' agendagains momentum.

'What works' In Scotland

In Scotland generally,the debateabout what constituteseffective practicehas been more low

key than in England and Wales, less focussedon cognitive behavioural programmesand

more accounttaken of the wider social exclusion issuesconnected with offending behaviour

(McIvor 2004). The definitions of effectiveness remain more fluid and promote the

relationshipsaspect of the work as underpinningeffectiveness (McIvor 2004). Sheriffs have

also expresseda preferencefor otherintermediate goals as being importantwhen measuring

effectiveness(Ford et al. 1992).Practitioners are dividedbetween the welfare approachof

Kilbrandon and the just desertsand protection agenda(McNeill 2000b) and this has to some

extent halted the unquestioningacceptance of the 'what works' agendathat has been evident

south of the border. Its uptakewas not as pronouncedin Scotlandas in England and Wales

(seeMclvor 2004; Robinsonand McNeill 2004) and it has beennoted that:

104 "There may still be, in Scottishcriminaljustice social work, a dissonancebetween the

continuing policy emphasis on tackling offending behaviour to reduce risk and

established practices rooted in alleviating needs, whether criminogenic or not "

(McNeill 2000a:6).

There is no reason not to assumethat this dissonanceis also present in work with young peoplewho offend.

The question of how effectivenessshould be measuredin the Scottish context has been investigatedby McNeill (2000a:6) who suggeststhat "uncritical acceptanceof re-offending or reconviction... as the primary measuresof effectivenessis worth questioning" reflecting the argumentsof Merrington and Stanley (2000). McNeill also assertsthat the debate about what is effective practice in Scotland has been muted and centred around efficiency in meetingNational Standarddeadlines, rather than a focus on effectiveness.

This focus on standardsis linked to the increasingly managerialistapproach taken by the

Scottish Executive towards justice policy. However, unlike England and Wales, developmentsin Scotlandhave encouraged a 'bottom-up'approach where the emphasishas been on local developmentssupported by centralleadership (McIvor 2004). This central leadershipwas facilitated by the establishmentof the GettingBest Results Steering Group in

1998, and subsequentlyby various subgroupsto addressdifferent issues in the evidence-

basedagenda (see Scottish Executive 2001c; 2001d). Developedin parallel with the Getting

Best Results agendahave been the pathfinder providers (see Scottish Executive 1999b)

identified as areasof good practice to provide inspiration to other areas.Unlike England and

105 Wales, with the focus on specificprogrammes, the initiative soughtto developchange across organisationsidentified as pathfinders,to facilitate good practiceat all levels (McIvor 2004).

In Scotland,the initial emphasiswas on the developmentof the 'what works' agendain the adult system. In this respect the youth justice system only began adopting 'what works' following the 2000 Youth Crime Review. The National Standardsfor Youth Justice(Scottish

Executive 2002a) are not as comprehensiveor prescriptive as the adult standards,although the awaitednew version is likely to be more detailed. It may be that the lack of prescription in the Youth Justice Standardsallows local servicesto be developedto meet local need and, like the adult system, Scotland may be spared the centralised and prescriptive aspects resonantof the youthjustice systemin Englandand Wales. While it is too early for definitive commentson this, Whyte (2004b) remains concernedabout the increasingpunitive rhetoric that accompaniespolicy statements.

The evidencein Scotlandregarding effective interventionswith young people who offend is limited, but developing. Buist (2004) reviewed a number of projects working with young

peopleinvolved in, or at risk of, offendingbehaviour. While not all the projectsaimed to

addressoffending, a numberof key messageswere identified for promisingpractice. "Buist

suggestedthat efficienttargeting, auditing and identifying of cost wasrequired, that projects

shouldbe part of wider local authorityservices and promotea socialinclusion approach,

evaluationshould be in built from the outset,progress should be maintainedthrough other

support, there was a need for good communication about the work of the projects and that

workers required a'range,of knowledge and skills to work effectively with the young people.

Theseconclusions appear to identify with a 'what works' corporatistagenda, but with a focus

44 it is notedthis refers to youngnales as females were poorly represented in the sample of projects.

106 on integrated,inclusive services.They perhapsindicate a possible future focus for youth justice researchin Scotlandto developthe knowledgebase further, but without concentrating on too narrow an interpretationof 'what works'.

CONCLUSION

Social policy in England and Wales, and increasingly in Scotland, is now linked to the advanceof neo-liberal governancefollowing a corporatist agenda(Rose 2000). Crime and disorder, social exclusionand regenerationare the policy areasmost closely associatedwith this 'Third Way' political project of New Labour. While theseareas cut acrossexisting policy boundarieswithin youth justice they are probably more closely linked than in any other policy area(Newman 2000).

This new governanceof youth justice supportsan emphasison multi-agency working and evidence-basedpractice that some have seen as undermining both the welfare and justice conceptualfraineworks of youth justice (Muncie 2002; Pratt 1989),with policy being guided by managementand organisationaltheories. This managementof crime focussing on value for money, efficiency and 'evidence' concentrateson the measurementof inputs and outputs rather than outcomesof interventions (Garland 1996). Such an approach,concentrating on the managementof crime rather than an in depth exploration of its causesor effects, may finther contribute to a move away from understandingcrime (Crawford 2001), negatingthe

need for a criminologicaldiscourse to inform change(Pifts 2001). Indeed,Muncie and

Hughes (2002) suggestthe policy is in effect a sophisticated,hybrid agenda of youth

governancewith variousdiscourses competing for different positionswhich is ultimatelya

confusing andmessy business reflecting Foucault's (1991) paradoxof governmentality.

107 Critics of the 'Third Way' approachto youth crime (seeGoldson 2000b; Muncie 2004; Pitts

2001; Smith R 2003) questionthe ability of the corporatistagenda to tackle youth offending.

The 'new youth justice' is viewed as taking corporatistand managerialistconcepts ftuther then before (McLaughlin et al 2001), increasingthe emphasison responsibility (Muncie and

Hughes 2002), encompassingglobalisation through comparative policy transfer (Muncie

2002) and criminological tourism (Smith R 2003), and departing from an informal approach to working with young people(Goldson 2005b).

Other commentators(Burnett and Appleton 2004; Fullwood and Powell 2004; Newburn

2002; Smith D 2003) are preparedto give the benefit of the doubt to the ongoing initiatives to not only reduce youth offending, but also increasethe social inclusion of young people. The new approachwith a focus on partnershipsand the 'what works' and desistanceagendas may represent a new challenge for policy makers and practitioners to actually make some difference in the lives of young people and reduce offending rates (Burnett and Appleton

2004), with the injection of much neededcash and resourcesinto a previously beleaguered service(Newburn 2002).

in Englandand Wales a largeamount of fundinghas been invested in researchto investigate

the effectivenessof the YOTs at addressingoffending behaviour. After someearly mixed

findings (Holdaway et al 1999;Bailey and Williams 2000) the most recentresearch from the

Youth Justice Board appearsto indicate some successin tackling youth crime (Feizler et al.

2004) through effective multi-agency partnerships (Youth Justice Board 2004a). Smith

(2000b) believesthe presentcorporatist approachto youth crime at least deservesa serious

108 collective attempt to work in practice becausemulti-agency working may be positive in certaincircumstances.

The efficacy of the corporatist approachto welfare provision in general and youth justice particularly is far from proven,not leastbecause "there is little evidenceof anything" (Smith

D 2003:233). There is scope for much more detailed researchthat encompassesa wide interpretation of 'what works' and what constitutes evidence. This is especially true in

Scotland where the populist punitiveness agenda for youth offending has not to date materialisedin practice to the sameextent as in England and Wales. It may be possible for

Scotlandto adopt aspectsof a corporatist,managerial system where the needsof the young people and the community are not secondto the need for savings and cost effectiveness- if

thesetwo are not mutually exclusive.

109 CHAPTER FOUR

YOUTH JUSTICE IN FALKIRK

The preceding two chaptershave discussedrecent UK policy developmentsand related

theoreticaldiscourses regarding the provision of youthjustice services.In Scotlandeach local authority has been tasked with developing localised responsesto youth crime to meet the

"monumentalchallenge" (Goldson 2000a:263) facing social work with children in trouble, a

challengewhich may fundamentallyalter youth justice provision in Scotland(Whyte 2004b).

This chapterdiscusses the establishment,strategic background and development of the youth justice arrangementsin Falkirk following the Youth Crime Review (Scottish Executive

2000).At the time of writing the descriptionsof Connect,Freagarrach and the strategygroups

remainsaccurate.

Youth justice provision in Falkirk has, for a number of years,been focussedon close inter-

agency working arrangementsidentified through previous research (Lobley et al 2001;

McIvor and Moodie 2002) and in a local youth crime audit which highlighted good local

partnershiparrangements (Fafldrk Council 2003).45 Since 2001 youth justice provision in

Falkirk has revolved around the Connect and Freagarrachprojects who, in partnershipwith

childrenand family and criminaljustice socialwork teams,have delivered the majority of

youthjustice services.Connect, a multi-professionalteam part of Falkirk Councilsocial work

services,has been operationalsince 2001 after being establishedas a responseto the Youth

Crime Review. The Barnardo's project, Freagarrach,has been in operation since 1995

45 The Lobley et al (2001) evaluation provides a detailed accountof the Freaprmch project. Since Tnid 2004 Freapffach Falkirk has operatedas a separateservice to the Forth valley Freagarrachand unlessstated otherwise all referencesin this thesis am to the Frealgarrach Falkirk project.

110 working with young people identified as persistent young offenders at high risk of

46 reoffending.

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

The Forth Valley Youth Justice StrategyGroup (formerly the Forth Valley Young Offender

47 StrategyGroup) has been in operationsince 1995. Establishedinitially to provide strategic direction for Freagarrach, which was operating across the Falkirk, Stirling and

ClaclanannanshireCouncil areasat the time, the group developed into the multi-agency youth justice strategic group that the Scottish Executive (2000) Youth Crime Review recommendedeach Council establish.It closely resemblesthe co-ordinateddelivery and strategic coordination models of multi-agency practice describedby Atkinson et al (2002) and Payne(2000) in ChapterThree.

The group comprisessenior managersfrom Falkirk, Stirling andClaclanannanshire Councils,

Central ScotlandPolice, the Scottish Children's ReporterAdministration, Forth Valley NHS

Board and Freagarrach,Aberlour and Apex voluntary organisations.It provides strategic directionto youthjustice projectsacross the Forth Valley and while it doesnot havedirect fiscal or managerial responsibility for the youth justice projects in FaUdrk there are representativeson the group with that responsibility. The historical multi-agency collaboration in the Forth Valley reflects flndings;from researchidentifying a long history of collaboration and partnershipsin the health and social care settings (Payne 2000; Gibbs

While Connect is the primary focus of this thesis, the partnershipaTmngcnw nts with Fahtc garrac regarding refsd arral an cl ose worldng practices at the interface of the Children's Hearingsand Criminal Justice Systernsnecessitated detRiled discussion of its role. Sacm also provided servicesto young peopleinvolved in offending behaviourin Falkirk, through the restorativejustice project, although its role was lessprominently acknowledgedby respondentsin this research. I The establishmentand early developmentof this group is detailedby Loblcy et al (2001).

III 2001a), although new policy initiatives mean these partnershipsare now becoming more

fonnalised.

The youthjustice strategicframework in the Forth Valley mirrors a numberof the YOT areas

of England and Wales where steering groups establishedacross local authority boundaries

plan the coordinationof servicesand the sharingof good practice.Purchasing of servicesand

sharing of information are described as potential benefits for these 'federal' models

(Holdaway et al 2001). In the Forth Valley area there have been joint training events for

youth justice workers acrossthe three councils (notably risk assessmenttraining), and in the joint purchasingof the police information system (Central Scotland Police covers the same

boundaries).The police information systemallows daily information aboutnew chargesto be

passeddirectly to the youth justice projects regarding young people they are working with, 48 providing the young personhas signeda consentfonn.

In Falkirk the Youth JusticeStrategy Group (formerly the Youth JusticeManagement Group)

is a multi-agency forum comprising of first line managersfrom a variety of organisations

involved in the delivery of servicesto young people. The group has included representatives

fi-omchildren and funilies socialwork, education,health, police, leisure services, corporate

services, Victim Support, Matrix, Cluaran, Connect, Freagarrach, and the Reporter's

49 The "has in delivery justice service. group strategicobjectives relationto ofyouth services in the Falkirk Council area and also providesa conduitfor informationto andfrom the

Young Offenders Strategy Group [sic] " (Falkirk Council 2004a: 16). It is publicised as a

group that servesas a direct contact betweenthe Forth Valley Strategy Group and the staff

48The consentform is signedby the young person,and their parent / carer if appropriate,consenting to the youth justice pmjects receiving and passingon infomation aboutsubsequent charges / convictions, up to a period of two yearsafter contact with the projectshas ended.The sjstem is the follow up to the TRACE systemdescribed by Lobley et &1(2001). Matrix (seeMcIvor and Moodie 2002)provides servicesfor young peopleunder the age of II who nay be at risk of offending behaviour. Cluaranprovides a servicefor young peopleto the ageof 16 who rmy be at risk of exclusion frorn school.

112 who have daily contact with young people (Falkirk Council 2004a) and deals with many of the strategicissues that ariseregarding youth justice throughoutFalkirk.

Strategicplans for servicesfor young people who offend in Falkirk are detailed in the Forth

Valley Criminal Justice Strategic Plan 2002-2005 (Clackmarmanshire,Falkirk, Stirling

Council 2002) and Falkirk Council Children's Service Plan 2002-2005 (Falkirk Council

2002). Referencesto youth justice in both plans reflects the fact that nationally it is unclear

exactly what age group youth justice policy is aimed at. Youth justice provision in Falkirk is

located in the wider children and families services in the Housing and Social Work

Department reflecting the Executive's direction for "integrated children's services at a

nationaland local level" (ScottishExecutive 2002a: 2). Within Falkirkan updated integrated

children's servicesstrategic plan is presently being rewritten to further reflect the multi-

agencynature of the work.

A key featureof closemulti-agency working arrangementsin Falkirk regardingyoung people

has been the roles of the Educationand Social Work Liaison Officers. Thesetwo posts are

unique to Falkirk Council and although fundedby the social work and educationdepartments

the workersare locatedpennanently at theoffice of the Reporterto theChildren's Hearings.

The main aims of the posts areto assistthe Reporterin making appropriatedisposal of cases,

to providean early short-termintervention to divert childrenfrom a formal hearingand to

improveinformation sharing and liaison with partneragencies. Half of the referralsto the

Social Work Liaison Officer relate to offence grounds and there is substantialcontact with

the Connectand Freagarrachprojects. The Education Liaison Officer serveson a number of

committeesand steering groups including the Falkirk Youth Justice Strategy Group and the

Youth JusticeReferral Group.

113 CONNECT

"Connect is a multidisciplinary team offering services to young people who

experiencedifficulties in relation to substanceuse andlor offending behaviour in

the Falkirk Council area" (Falkirk Council 2004a).

Connect was initially envisagedas a young person's drug and alcohol service following the commissioningof work by the Forth Valley SubstanceAction Team and the Forth Valley

Young Offenders Strategy Group to consider the extent and nature of substanceuse in the

Forth Valley area by young people. Following a lengthy processof funding applications

Connect was establishedin mid 2001. The establishmentof Connect as a project for both

young people aged 12-18 experiencing substanceuse problems and young people who

offend, was made possible through creative use of various funding streams,including the

innovation Fund, Rough SleepersInitiative, Youth Crime funds, Community Care funds and

the Changing Children's Services Fund (Falkirk Council 2002). This innovative use of

various funds was cited as a good example of creative use of resourcesin forming multi-

agencypartnerships (Scottish Executive 2001b) and was instrumentalin the developmentof

the multi-professionalaspect of the team.

The type of servicedelivered and methodof interventiondeveloped over the history of

Connectas a resultof changesin policy, locally andnationally, and increases or decreasesin

fundingfrom varioussources. Most of the fundingnow comesfrom Falkirk Council'syouth

justice children'sdevelopment service fund. This allowsfor specificposts to be filled taking

greateraccount of local need.One main source of fundinghas allowed the standardisationof

114 data collection, permitting a focus on monitoring and evaluation information, rather than collecting datato meetthe fimding requirements.

Following a busy and challenging year in 2001-2002establishing the service,the subsequent two years were a time of consolidationin raising the profile of the project and developing servicedelivery taking accountof local auditsand the changesin staff composition.The aims andobjectives of the servicehave evolved over the last three years,partly due to the changes and increasein staffing levels allowing for a greaterrange of servicesto meet varied needs that were not reflected in the original aims. The most recent aims are detailed in the 2003

Annual Report(Falkirk Council 2004a:5):

* To reducethe impact of offending behaviourby young people in the community

* To reducethe hann associatedwith substanceuse

9 To work with young people in a manner consistent with the United Nations

Conventionon the Rights of the Child as adoptedby the UK Govemmentin 1991

9 To assistyoung peopleto balancetheir rights and responsibilitiesas they mature

* To develop young people's skills and confidence enabling them to make positive

choicesthat reflect their rights andresponsibilities

* To provide an evidence-basedservice utilising all available resourcestaking account

of lifestyle, race, gender and cultural background and ensure involvement with the

individual, family/carersand significant others

9 Connect adalowledges that there are inequalities relating to young people and we

strivetherefore to balancethe competing demands in all areasof a youngpersons life

115 Diversion from prosecutionin the criminal justice system for 16-18 year olds constitutesa slightly distinct service receiving referrals directly from the Procurator Fiscal. Since becomingoperational until the end of 2004 Connecthad receiveda total of 439 referralsto its various services,of which thirty four (8%) were assessedas not suitable.Ninety-nine of these referralswere diversion from prosecutioncases.

In relation to substanceuse the Connect project fits into tier two / three of the Forth Valley

SubstancesAction Team tiered approachto substanceuse (www. forthvalleysat.co. uk). This tiered approachis a multi-agency responseto substanceuse that allows for a variety of pathwaysinto treatment dependingon drug use and method of administration.Connect fits into tier two through offering education and prevention work, group work, harm reduction and individualcounselling, but can also link into tier threethrough being ableto prescribe

(CADS). 50 methadonein conjunction with Community Alcohol andDrugs Service

In relation to offending the Connect project has drawn on a range of offence-focussed resourcesbased on a variety of cognitive behaviouralprogrammes. These include the 'Fired

Up' anger managementprogramme, 'Targets for Change' offence focussedprogramme and

51 the 'Offending is Not the Only Choice' package. Over its history a variety of interventions havebeen provided to young peopleand their families, for both substanceuse and offending behaviour referrals and many of the young people were joint referrals to eachaspect of the

service. The interventionsaim to be compliantwith the 'what works' and desistance

principles of effective practicewith a particular emphasison multi-model delivery (Andrews

et al 1990; Lipsey 1995) and engaging young people who may otherwise prove difficult to

50A practicenurse in the team wasthe qualified link nurseto appropriatemedical treatment. 11Fired Up is a Youth JusticeBoard / Mental HealthMedia / Dawson Films (2003) visual aid for use in anger managementcourses. Targets for Change,developed by NottinghamshireProbation Service is a resourcepack of different materialsbased on 'what works' (it wasnot initially designedfor young people). Offending is Not the Only Choice (Youth Version) is a problem solving programmedeveloped by the Cognitive CentreFoundation for use in Scotland.

116 engage(Trotter 1999). Attendance at Connect for young people under the age of 16 has always aimed to be on a voluntary basis with the consentof the young person. For young peopleover the ageof 16, while voluntary attendancewas preferred,the natureof the work in the court system necessitatedyoung peoplebeing acceptedoccasionally as a condition of a probationorder.

The services at Connect are provided by a multi-professional team with a focus on partnershipworking to addressthe needsof young people. Since its inception the team has comprisedof professionalsfrom health, social work, community education,residential social work andthe voluntary sector.At the time of the fieldwork interviews the team comprisedof-

* One team manager- (social work)

e Two seniorworkers - (social work and nursing)

9 Three social workers- (oneemployed as a programmedevelopment worker)

* One community educationworker

One low risk / early intervention worker (community educationand residential child

carebackground)

Substancepractitioner (nursingbackground)

e Two administrafiveworkers

Senior managementresponsibility for Connect rests with the Criminal Justice Service

Manager who has youth justice as part of her portfolio. The Forth Valley Youth Justice

Strategygroup, althoughhaving an overview of the project and being fidly awareof its development, has no direct responsibility for the team as the varying operational and managementarrangements in the local councils precludethis line of responsibility. Similarly

117 the Falkirk Youth Justice Strategy Group also has no direct responsibility for the managementor operationaldirection of Connect.

hmediately prior to and following its establishment,strategic policy for how the project would work was constantlyevolving. Most of the policy development,liaison and advertising was co-ordinatedby the team managerat the time, and Burnett and Appleton (2004) have notedthe importanceof having a committedand visionary managerat the beginningof a new service. The manager,with other team members, embarkedon a seriesof roadshowsand promotions to various local organisationswho could potentially refer young people to the new project. No referrals to the project were taken for the first six months to facilitate this.

This strategy reflected, at the time, the Scottish Executive policy of flexibility as to how youthjustice arrangementsshould develop locally.

FREAGARRACH FALN3RK

Freagarrachwas establishedin 1995 by Barnardo's to deliver a service to 12-16 year olds involved in persistentoffending behaviour acrossthe Forth Valley area.The age group was expandedin 2000 to include up to 18 year olds. In April 2003 the Falkirk and Stirling

(Stirling covers Claclunannanshire)sites became two separate projects and Freagarrach

Falkirkbecame a standalone project because it wasfelt this arrangementcould respond more effectivelyto local need.Previously staff hadworked between the projectsacross the Forth

Valley.Over the period since Connect was established until theend of 2004Freagarrach have workedwith approximately120 young people. 52

' nis figurewas obtained by combiningapproximate figures fiom the annual reports (Bamardo's 2002; 2003; 2004).

118 The aim of the FreagarrachFalkirk project is:

"To reduceand ultimately stop the offending behaviour of 12-18year olds who are at

risk of being removedfrom their communitiesdue to the frequency / severity of their

offending" (Bamardo's 2004:3).

Freagarrach provides a multi-modal individualised programme to meet its aims and objectiveswhich include six main areasof work. Theseinvolve a specific focus on offending behaviour, family work, constructive use of leisure, education / employment, victim awareness/ reparation, self and health. An action plan is developedfollowing an Asset assessmentidentifying how theseareas of work will be undertaken.A variety of methodsare usedduring the programmeincluding worksheets,games, discussions, activities, groupwork 53 and family networks. As the young people are generally at high risk of reoffending there is a high intensity of contact, usually three times a week for up to 12 months. This level of contactwas found to be beneficial for the young person(Lobley et al 2001) and concurswith the higher level of contact identified as necessarywhen working with persistentand higher risk young people (Lipsey 1995). In addition to the main service Freagarrachprovide an aftercareservice to supportyoung peoplein desistancefrom offending.

in mostcases referrals come from a socialworker and attendanceis voluntary,albeit within a

supervisionorder. Increasingly young people are being refeffedunder statutory orders from

the adult criminal justice system.At the time of interview the team comprisedof a Children's

Service Manager, a Senior Practitioner and four project workers, all social work trained,54 and two administrativestaff. The project is based at Weedingshalla former young person's

11Lobley et at (2001)provide a conVmhensivedescription of the FreagarrachFalkirk project. 34A social work qualification is not a prerequisitefor project workers.

119 residential unit in Falkirk. More recently, volunteers have been recruited to work in partnershipwith the pennanentstaff to deliver the appropriateservices to young people.

CONNECT AND FREAGARRACH INTER-AGENCY PARTNERSHIP

The Youth Justice Referral Group (YJRG) was the most recent and central addition to the multi-agencyarrangements in Falkirk. It was establishedin September2003 to offer a single point of access to Connect and Freagarrachand "to overcome some of the confusion regarding Connect's referral criteria and specifically its fit with Freagarrach's referral criteria " (Falkirk Council 2004a:13). The YJRG has developed closer inter-agency

(Crawford 1997)partnership working betweenConnect andFreagarrach, manifesting itself in joint-working a small numberof cases,co-working sessionswith field social workers,

attendanceat court andchildren's hearingsand liaison with a number of agencies(eg housing

mid health).

The YJRG is a multi-agency forum with representativesfrom a range of agenciesincluding

police,education, children and families social work (chair),Reporter's service, Connect and

Freagaffach.The group is a decision making multi-agency model of partnershipworking

(Atkinsonet al 2002)as it decideson a weeklybasis the mostappropriate project for young

peoplefollowing referralbecause of concernsabout offending and / or substanceuse. The

referralgroup is alsothe focus for monitoringand evaluation of theprojects.

Following the introduction of the YJRG the demarcationof referral between both projects

was set at persistentand /or seriousnessof offence. In effect Freagarrachretained its original

criteria for working with those young people who were defined as persistent offenders and

120 also added the seriousnesscriteria, while Connect worked with young people whose

55 behaviour was assessedas being less persistent or serious. Referrals to Connect are acceptedin relation to young people aged 12 to 18 yearswho reside in the Falkirk Council areaand who experiencedifficulties as a result of offending behaviourand / or substanceuse, or whose lives are negativelyimpacted by the substanceuse of others.Freagarrach's referral criteria relate to young people aged 12 to 18 years old involved in persistent offending behaviour and / or who may be at risk of being accommodatedbecause of their behaviour.

The referral criteria for both projectshave remainedflexible dependingon the circumstances of the young peoplerefeffed. 56

As will be discussedin ChapterSix, the differentiationbetween the projectsregarding

referralswas not always straightforward.The first YJRG evaluation(Falkirk Council 2004b) indicated that a number of young people identified as persistent had been allocated to

Connect staff, while Freagarrachwere working with young peoplewho were not identified as

persistentoffenders. 57 It is also worth noting that young people exhibiting sexuallyaggressive

behaviour haveusually beenreferred to Connectregardless of persistenceor risk level.

Protocols for inter-agencyworking between Connect and Freagarrachand partner agencies

within the youthjustice settingwere constantly developing, and there was no agreedmodel of

practice as to how work was allocatedor managedamongst the agencies.Statutory

responsibilityand therefore case management responsibility notionally rested with the social

work tewns although, as discussedin Chapter Eight, there were concernsabout the role of

casemanager. However, there were someyoung people who did not have an allocatedsocial

Thedefinition of whatconstitutes 'serious' remains problematic and was the subject of muchdebate at theYJRG and within the projects. TheMatrix project accepts referrals on younger children up to theage of II whomay be at risk of offendingbehaviour. 5715% of thereferrals to Connectand 780/6 of thoseto Freagarrachwere identified as persistent in theYJRG database. It is not knownif the non-persistentcases at Freagarrachfitted the 'serious' criteria.

121 worker, in which casethe Connect or Freagarrachworker generally becamethe key worker taking on a 'case management'role. Practice was flexible and variable regarding actual managementof the case. In some casesthe social worker continuedto work closely with a

young person, either co-working with project workers, or working on other criminogenic

needs,while in other casesthe project workers provided most of the input for the young person.

Contribution to regular training events for panel members and other partners, and consultationwith other agenciesregarding youth offending issues,also identified the two projects with the consultancyand training model of multi-agency working (Atkinson et al

2002). Staff at Connectalso organiseda regular practitioners' forum for the sharing of good practice and seminarsinviting expertsin the field of youth justice to inform practitioners of practiceand research developments.

Referral to the YJRG 58

The referral procedure was detailed in a leaflet distributed by the YJRG and usually

commencedwith a telephonecall to eitherConnect or Freagarrachwhere basic, standardised

details were collected on a form designedto complementinformation collected by an Asset

assessment.Unless a referral did quite obviouslynot meet the criteria thesedetails were circulatedto referralgroup members for their regularweekly meetings where decisions were

madeas to which servicebest met the needsof the young person on the basisof-

* Informationcontained on thereferral form

" Thisdescription details the procedures at thetirm of the fieldworkinterviews. Procedures an constantlydeveloping.

122 9 Information provided by the police relating to the number of previous episodesof

offending

* Information provided by educationservices relating to the young personsattendance

and performanceat school

eA judgementrelated to the natureand intensity of servicerequired.

Referralswere taken from a variety of sources,including self-referral from young people and

their families. This wide variety of sourceswas identified as being beneficial as it resulted in increasedaccess to the services(Falkirk Council 2004b).Nearly 80% of referralswere in fact

from within the social work department.Over the period from I September2003 to 31

December2004,178 referrals were made to the YJRG, involving 136 (76%) males and 42

(24%) females,of which 20 (11%) were deemednot suitableby the group. The ageranges of

the young people, extractedfrom the YJRG databasecovering the above dates, are detailed below in table 1. One hundred and twelve (18 non offenders) young people were

subsequentlyreferred to Connect (81 males,31 females)and 46 to Freagarrach(37 males, 9

females).

Age 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Male 5 6 16 25 31 23 16 12

Female 0 1 9 7 17 4 5 1

Table I- refeffal by ageto YJRG

Whendeemed 'not suitable'by theYJRG for ongoingwork at Connector Freagaffachadvice

was provided to the refeffer regarding more appropriate services for the young person.

Following acceptanceby the YJRG a young personwas referredto either Connector

Freagarrach,depending on the level and type of offending, for an assessmentutilising the

Asset tool. The resulting assessmentprocess was expectedto take between4-6 weeks at the

123 conclusionof which the assessmentoutcome, together with an action plan if appropriate,was consideredagain by the YJRG.

The final decision of the YJRG usually involved continuing work with Connect or

Freagarrachand allocation to the project worker who undertookthe initial assessment.It was rare that a young personwas deniedftuther supportat this stage.Contact may have included a further period of assessmentor commencementof the work identified in the action plan.

The YJRG role in terms of the evaluation of the intervention involved a report from the projects to the group at six monthly intervals to ascertainthe type and effectivenessof the intervention, or at completion of the input if sooner. Progresswas measuredand targets monitored in relation to the National Standardsfor Youth Justice(Scottish Executive 2002a).

DEVELOPMENTS IN 2005

As previously indicatednational and local policy is continually evolving and this chapterhas describedthe working arrangementsthat were evident in Falkirk at the time of the fieldwork for the Connectand Freagarrachprojects. Following the completionof the fieldwork, but unrelatedto any findings,a review of youthjustice provisionin FaRdrkmade plans for a modelof practicethat focussedon thecentral role of childrenand familiesteams as the major providersof youth justice services.The model is to confirm the retentionof statutory responsibility in the social work teams and ensurethe expansionof theseteams with extra resourcesand staff to meet the demandsof National Standards.There are no plans to have specific youth justice workers in the areateams, as all young people are to be allocated a social worker basedon need,not the referralreason. Connect and Freagarrachare to be retainedas providers of 'specialist'youth justice provision as described in this chapter.

124 CHAPTER FIVE

METHODS

The researchaimed to establishhow the developmentof a multi-professionalyouth justice team affected wider multi-agencyarrangements, to identify the positive and negativeaspects of multi-agencyworking in the Scottish context and what may facilitate or inhibit effective practice. The perceptionsof a number of key service users were central to achieving this.

Taking accountof the difficulties in defining 'effectiveness' (see Chapter Three) it was not defined in the interview processto allow respondentsto fonnulate their own thoughtson the concept.

This chapteridentifies the methodologicalapproach adopted to answerthe researchquestions and details the specific casestudy methodsadopted. It highlights the challengesencountered duringthe course of thisthesis relating to the choiceof methods,the professional background of the studentresearcher and the political context of the research,with the ethical and practical aspectsof these challengesprominent. While not an overtly 'confessional tale'

(Noaksand Wincup 2004) this chapteris a reflexiveaccount which highlightsthe challenges of conductingresearch in the real world. Thesechallenges emanate not only from the theoretical rigor required to undertake social science researchbut also from the specific nature of the case study located in the particularly vibrant political and media spotlight of youth offending and the professional background of the student researcher. Because criminological researchis a social,political and ethical activity, reflexivity is seenas being a vital part of the process(Jupp et al 2000). Reflexivity is the processof reflecting critically on

125 the self as a researcher(Lincoln and Guba 2000), it takes into accountthe methodsadopted

for study andthe effect the researchermay haveon participants.

The selection of a topic and case to study are the initial starting points for most social

researchers,where decisions may be informed by personal preferences, accessibility,

previous researchexperience and funding arrangements.Such intrinsic interest in the case

(Stake 2000a)and resultantchoices support the view that "there is no value-freeor bias-free

design" (Janesick2000: 385), especiallywhen investigating crime andjustice where research

andpractice is often the result of political and moral choices(Bottoms 2000).

The broad area of interest for the student researcherwas the criminal justice system in

Scotland,an interestdeveloped from professionaltraining and work experienceas a criminal justice social worker in practice, first line managementand policy settings.As the research

areahad alreadybeen identified through the collaborative studentship,process, and an initial

proposal for the research had been accepted,the student researcherwas not involved in

decisionsabout the focus of the study at the initial stage,nor privy to initial discussionsabout

how theresearch role would developand which methods would be employed.

Social scientists have traditionally approachedresearch from either a positivist

epistemologicalparadigm of scientific enquiry employing quantitativemethods of data

collection, or from an interpretivistparadigm favouring qualitativemethods to gain an

understanding of the social world. This simple description of the two epistemological

positions belies the complex philosophical and scientific theorising that accompaniesthe

subject.Such theorising is beyondthe scopeof this thesisbut is coveredto varying degreesin

numerous texts on researchmethods (Bryman 2001; Denzin and Lincoln 2000; Bottoms

126 2000), and specifically in relation to social work (Gibbs 2001b; Macdonald 1994; Smith

1987). The discourse is complicated by the ever changing nature of the debate and the developmentof terminology and thinking (evenamong the sameauthors) over time (Gillharn

2000).

Methods associatedwith a positivist paradigminclude experimentaland quasi-experimental approacheswith control groups,surveys and structuredquestionnaires. Qualitative methods of data collection include in-depth/unstructuredinterviews and participant observation.

Some commentatorsbelieve researcherscannot 'pick and choose' methods from positivist and interpretivist paradigmsbecause they are contradictory and mutually exclusive (Lincoln andGuba 2000).

However, these distinctions are increasingly being eroded as researchersemploy multiple methods of investigation that are suitable for different ways of understandingthe social world. Choice of researchmethods can be influenced by the distinction betweenpure or basic research and applied or policy-oriented research (Clarke 2001). Clarke describes basic researchas being discipline oriented with an aim of developing a generalunderstanding of humanbehaviour through empirical enquiry and the applicationof theory. Applied, or policy- oriented,research is morepractical in its use,focussed on utilising researchknowledge in a real world setting(Clark 2001), 59 aligned with the engineeringmodel of research-policy- practicerelationships where researchis viewed as a technicalprocess in the searchfor

specific solutionsto identified issues (Bulmer 1982). In applied researcha pragmatic

approachto data collection, using multiple methodsis now widely employed(Bryman 2001) and identifying oneself with one set of methodsis no longer seenas being useful or helpful

" Jupp et al (2000) ernploy the tem 'policy-felatod' research,referring to researchundertaken to help in the fonnulation of policies and it is this term that is usedin this thesis.

127 (Harnmersley1996; Schwandt2000). The qualitative / quantitative distinction is sometimes seenas a poor methodologicalguide for researchin the social sciencesand increasinglythere is a belief that what is required:

". Js a methodologicallyaware eclecticismin which thefull range of options is kept in

mind, in terms of both methods and philosophical assumptions" (Hammersley

1996:174).

The presentresearch is predicatedon the belief that the methodsemployed are thosethat can adequatelyaddress the research question, taking a more pragmatic view about utilising appropriatemethods and acknowledgingthe variety of techniquesthat are available (Symon andCassell 1998).This position is allied to that of Gillhain (2000) who suggests"you usethe methods (and therefore the underlying philosophy) which are best-suitedto what you are trying to find out" (Gillham 2000:5). This 'technical' decisionto employ both qualitative and quantitative methodsto answerthe researchquestion acknowledgesthat while the methods are associatedwith differing epistemologicalpositions, the strengthsof each to answer the researchquestion should be the decidingfactor and the relationshipshould not be fixed and unchangeable(Bryman 2001).60

The epistemologicaland methodologicaldebate has also been prominentin social work

(Gibbs 2001b; Powell 2002; Smith 1987; Trinder 1996) and the link between theory and researchis a continuing topic of debate in criminology (see Bottoms 2000). Smith (1987) arguedthat researchshould be more concernedwith process,be more open,participative and pragmatic and that the only prescription should be that evaluation involves a variety of

' Ile opposing epistemologicalor paradigm argument seesmulti-stmtegy methods as being unsustainablebecause of the incompatible epistemologicalpositions underpinningthem (Bryman 2001).

128 researchapproaches. The thesis adoptsthe argumentthat in order to understandthe world, especially in a policy-related area, a variety of researchmethods should be used (Bottoms

2000; Cheethafn et al 1992; King and Wincup 2000; Smith 1987), acknowledging that evaluating partnershipsoften benefits from a mixed methodsapproach (Scottish Executive

2002h:11).

Layder's (1998) adaptive theory encouragesa multi-method approachfor analysis of the social world and is particularly useful for criminological research(Bottoms 2000). Adaptive theory is useffil for thcorising in situations where concepts,events and data collection are ongoing and evolving as in applied policy-related case study research. It can adjust and modifyas it:

".. attempts to map some of the lifeworld-system interlocks that form a synthesisof

subjectiveand objective aspectsof social life. As such, the form of the theory is both

descriptiveand explanatoryand relies on concepts,networks and conceptualmodels of

the social world which both shapeand are shapedby that world.

As a result of thesecharacteristics, adaptive theory should not be regardedas an end-

point or definite conclusionto the theory building process" (Layder 1998:175).

The Connectproject and wider policy had 'objective' realities,detailed in guidelinesand

annualreports, which were independentof any person's attemptsto understandthem (Layder

1998). The subjective aspectsof people's perceptions and understandingof the Connect

project and wider policy, and how this was then translated into practice, constituted the

primary focus of the research.This relates to the complex relationship between human

agencyand structure (Giddens 1984), and within youth justice especiallythe implementation

129 of policy is an ambiguousco-existence between the actualpolicy guidelinesand how various professionalsseek to interpretthem (Eadieand Canton2002).

ETHICAL RESEARCH

"Ethics is about the standardsto be adoptedtowards others in cartying out research" (Jupp et al 2000:171) and due to its fundamentalimportance it will be returned to throughout this chapterin relation to specific circumstances.Criminological researchdoes not operate in a political and moral vacuum and is shapedby the political context (Hughes2000; Noaks and

Wincup 2004) and the values of the researcher(janesick 2000).61 In the first instance the primary political and ethical context for the presentresearch was the funding provided by

Falkirk Council, in addition to the main fimding by the Economic and Social Research

Council. This raises the question of whether the supplementary funding provided an expectationabout the researchor its outcome.Although a collaborativecase studentship, the funding invites comparisonwith issuesraised in relation to any funded research because

"taking funding from someonein order to conduct research is not a neutral act " (Cheek

2000: 412). It entails obligations on both parties,with potential pressureon the researcherto reach the 'right answer' (Mair 2000; Noaks and Wincup 2004) and, as Cheek (2000) highlights, funded researchdoes not merely refer to the provision of financial support for subsistence,travel andother expenses.In this researchhelp wasalso provided in otherways by FaWrk Council with technological equipment and support facilities normally only accessedby employeesof the Council, not leastthe supportof administrativestaff.

" Nooksand Wincup (2004) develop discussion around definitions of thetem political.

130 Having a field supervisor from the non-academic agency, in addition to two academic supervisors, was agreed at the outset. Fortnightly to monthly meetings with academic supervisors were supplemented by quarterly meetings with both academic and field supervisors.The remit for quarterly meetings was to discussprogress of the research(not technical and methodological issues) in addition to any practical difficulties encountered.

From a studentresearcher's point of view this increasedthe amountof supervisionsessions, but proved invaluable in ensuringsmooth progress,connecting the theoretical and practice aspectsof the researchand discussing any possibleethical issuesin a wider forum.

Despite the potential for difficulties involved in a collaborative case studentship,including thecontrol of thedirection of theresearch and dissemination of informationand findings,no problemswere encountered that would havecompromised the independenceof the research.

A personaldilemma relatedto the different presentationskills requiredto presentfindings to an academic and a practice audience. Discussion with academic supervisorshelped the studentresearcher to verbalisethese dilenunas and achievean approachthat addressedthese concerns.This involved being clear about the amount of interim findings releasedprior to a final analysisof the data.

Intellectualproperty rights andownership of datawere clarified at the time of the research proposal,followed shortly afterwardsby the questionof anonymityof the organisations involved.Falkirk Council, Connectand Freagarrachwere the namedorganisations and all

hadno problem with being identified in the final thesis.However, identifying the Council and certain projects createdan additional challenge of maintaining confidentiality in relation to individual participants,a point retunedto later.

131 Bearing in mind the potential expectationsof a funder, at no point was any attemptmade, by the council or individual projects, to influencewhat shouldbe included in interviews or what findings should or should not be included. This was especially important as the design developedfrom the original proposalaway from a quantitativeapproach, favoured by policy makers(Jupp et al 2000; Mair 2000), to one involving qualitative methodsand analysis,due to the developmentalnature of the project in the case study. Qualitative methodsfacilitated the answering of the researchquestions but could not provide any quantitative 'answers' about effectivenessof the project. This changeof focus in the researchwas acceptedby the council as a necessarydevelopment because of the changing nature of the particular project andwas left to thediscretion of thestudent researcher.

CHANGING FOCUS - DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND RESEARCH DESIGN

Adopting an adaptivetheory approach,and the absenceof any ideological commitment to a particular paradigm of enquiry, was instrumental in allowing a reassessmentof the appropriate methods of enquiry as "... over the course of the project, the focus of [my] researchactivities shifted and altered in responseto a range of influences" (Innes2001: 213).

These influences included the constantly developing youth justice agenda,the fluctuating natureof thelocal multi-agencyarrangements, the ever-changingneeds of theyoung people, accessissues and also the increasein the studentresearcher's knowledge relating to the subjectand research experience. The development of theresearch in responseto theemerging agendaswould have been more difficult if one epistemological and / or methodological 62 paradigmwas favoured.

" Appendix4 detailsthe chronology of theresearch, policy and practice process.

132 The youth justice arrangementsin Falkirk at the time of the original proposaldiffered from those at the commencementof fieldwork. In turn, the servicesprovided by Connect and

Freagarrachdeveloped differently from their original aims and objectives in responseto emergingpolicy. This resulted in the original proposal - to evaluatethe effectivenessof a project at the interface of the Children's Hearings and Criminal Justice Systemsin diverting

16 and 17 year olds from the criminal justice system - submitted prior to the student researchers'involvement, becominguntenable. Firstly, the Connect project was established with new ftmding necessitatinga wider focus than 16 and 17 year olds (seeChapter Two), and subsequentlypolicy initiatives and practice issuesheralded the arrival of a wider remit for both Connectand Freagarrach.There was no new initiative or programmein local youth justice arrangementsthat was sufficiently developedto allow 'evaluation' employing a more quantitativeanalysis as detailedin the original proposal.63

What developedwere local arrangementswhere the multi-professionalteam of Connect,and the Freagarrachproject, became the focus of Falkirk Council's multi-agency youth justice arrangements(Falkirk Council 2003). Thesepolicy developmentsresulted in a changein the focus of the research to examine the establishment and development of the new multi-agency arrangements for youth justice. In practice the adaptability in the research design complementedthe developing policy processand enabled a comprehensivecase study that identifiedmany points of interestfor policy makers,stakeholders and researchers relating to youthjustice developments in Scotland.Swinkels et al (2002)have suggested that it should be accepted in social care research that regular policy changes require rigorous methodologicalapproaches that can respondto changingpolicy directions.

63in criminology and policy-related researchit is often suggestedthat nwre credenceis attachedto quantitative researchof this nature (Jupp et al 2000).

133 The primary aim of the research was to establish how the development of a multi- professionalyouth justice team affected the wider multi-agencypartnership arrangements in

Falkirk in relation to those young people at the interface of the Children's Hearing and

Criminal JusticeSystems. Within this additional objectiveswere to:

Examine the learning and development of a multi-professional team in the Scottish

context

Identify the positive aspectsof multi-agency working, what was working well and

identify any difficulties professionalswere experiencingin this joined up approach

9 Identify thosefactors that facilitate or inhibit effective practiceat the interface

9 Gain an understandingof professionals'perceptions about national and local youthjustice

policy andhow this was being translatedinto practice

* Establish to what extent an evidence-based,'what works', approach had been

implementedacross Falkirk

The policy developmentsin Falkirk and the subsequentchange in researchdesign illuminated a problem that policy makers face in that they should "... not takefor granted that what was intendedto be establishedor put in place through a policy initiative will be what onefinds after the implementationprocess is complete" (Rist 2000:1009). 64 This aspectof the study was one of the major challengesduring the period of the researchand highlights a potential difficulty of being overly constrainedin the choice of methods when engagedin policy- relatedresearch.

" Identifyingwhen the implernentation process is completeis anotherquestion and one that will vmy betweendifferent policies.

134 As discussedabove, the researchmethods employed in this study were neither groundedin the epistemologicalperspective of the student researcher,nor a predeterminedapproach to best meet the needsof the funders,(Noaks and Wincup 2004). The subjectmatter indicated a case study approachthat has been described as a choice of what to study by whatever methods,rather than a specific methodological choice (Stake 2000a). The methodsof data gatheringwere thoseemployed to provide the richest analysisof the topic. Before looking at the particular methodsa brief understandingof how this researchconstitutes a case study approachwill be discussed.

RESEARCH IN CONTEXT - THE CASE STUDY

"Case studies are the preferred strategy when "how " or "why " questionsare being

posed, when the investigator has little control over events,and when thefocus is on a

contemporaryphenomenon within somereal-life context" (Yin 1994:1).

A case study design is a fi-wnework of investigation that is used extensively in the social sciencesand practice oriented fields like social work (Yin 1994) and is often the preferred methodof researchbecause it is in harmonywith the researcher'sexperiences (Stake 2000b).

A casestudy often refersto a unit of humanactivity embeddedin thereal world, which can only be studiedor understoodin its presentcontext, a contextwhere precise boundaries are difficult to draw (Gillharn 2000). There are no preconditionsto what actually constitutes a

4case',a location, communityor organisationcan be the focus of studies(Bryman 2001).

Despite this tentative definition of what constitutesa casethere is little agreementabout the

overall.definition of a casestudy firom a methodologicalstandpoint (Stake 2000a). While Yin

135 (1994) and Stake(2000a) suggestthat quantitative andqualitative methodsof enquiry can be used in a case study (albeit with the descriptionprovided by Yin pointing to the 'scientific' rigour of the method), Gillham (2000) points to casestudies as benefiting from adopting a more qualitative approachto the gatheringof 'evidence' and moving away from a scientific quantitative methodology becausein the real world experimentalscientific studiesare "ill suited to the complexity, embeddedcharacter, and specificity of real-life phenomena"

(Gillhwn 2000:6).

Stake(2000a) describesthree types of casestudy. An intrinsic casestudy aims to achievea better understandingof a particular case rather than its representativenessfor other cases,

althoughgeneralisations can be madefrom it. instrumentalcase studies focus on a particular caseto provide generalisationsto other cases,and a collective casestudy involves studying a number of casesto achieve a better overall understandingor theory. The presentresearch initially identified with an intrinsic case study because the non-academicpartner Was interested in a better understanding of a particular project (the case), although the generalisationof the research findings was a major considerationfrom a wider academic perspectiveand for the Scottishcontext.

Collaborating through action research

Brief mentionis madehere of actionresearch as someof thepractical aspects of theresearch

encompassedfeatures that are attributed to such an approach.Action researchis not easily

explained as it encompassesmany types of study and methods (Kemmis and McTaggart

2000; Bryman 2001) although it has traditionally been utilised with disadvantagedor

disempowered,groups or organisations(Greenwood and Levin 2000; Kemmis and McTaggart

136 2000) and with educationalresearch (McNiff and Whitehead2002). Action researchis also often associatedwith practitioners, political activists or staff in an organisation.being responsible for undertaking the research (Zuber-Skeritt 1996), removing the distinction betweenresearcher and subject (McNiff and Whitehead2002). It is the recognition of this latter point that has precludedthe identification of action researchas a major methodological

framework in the present research. The student researcher was independent of the organisationalthough, as will be discussedlater, this distinction was perhapsbluffed at times becauseof the professionalbackground.

Collaboration between researcherand researchedin identifying problems or issues and developingsolutions means the action researcheris more actively involved in the application of the research,with resultantbenefits for the organisationas changescan be implemented before the researchis completed (Avison 1997). This cyclical processlinking theory and practice, with knowledge and understandingfrom the research process being applied immediately, was the defining feature of the presentresearch. The student researcherwas

actively involved in feeding back ongoing data, which was particularly important as Falkirk

Council were keen to generatefindings regarding the developmentof youth justice services

and the Connectproject. An early exampleof the collaborativenature of the researchwas the

suggestionmade to Falkirk Councilabout the difficulty of employingvarious risk assessment

tools for young people, a point which was noted and changeswere implemented(see Chapter

Two).

137 METHODS - IMPLEMENTATION FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE

"Generally, the researchergathers infonnation or data up to the point where she or he

either has enough to supply answers to the questions that originally prompted the

research,or has enoughto test-out or produce a theory or explanationto accountfor

the data " (Layder 1998:46).

Casestudies are synonymouswith using multiple sourcesof evidenceto arrive at a fact or

theory (Yin 1994) and Gillham (2000) views a casestudy as a 'main' methodwithin which

different 'sub-methods' are used. The length of the study and how much needs to be

understoodabout the caseare complexdecisions and ultimately "what is necessaryfor an

understandingof the casewiU be decidedby the researcher" (Stake2000a: 44 1). What guides

the researcherwill of coursebe informed by previous theory and researchbut also by what

the ongoing study identifies as important. In adaptivetheory (Layder 1998) the deductiveand

inductive processesare central to the methods employed and in taking these issues into

accountcognisance should be taken of the fact that:

"In thereal worldevidence is of variouskinds and noneof it is perfect....[so] thecase

study researchermust strive to keepan open mind, to go on lookingfor data, deferring

analysis until the array is comprehensive(and you don't stop completelyeven then) "

(Gillhain 2000:12-13).

Wbile the areasknown to be important in multi-agency offending work were identified by a

literature review focussingon the corporatistgovernance of youth justice in a managerialist

framework,established criminological theories were drawn on to locate findings in their

138 theoreticalcontext. Left realist criminology (seeMatthews and Young 1992;Young 1997)is

critical due to its influence on the political landscapeof contemporaryyouth justice policy with an emphasison multi-agency work. Aspects of labelling theory (see Becker 1963;

Lemert 1972) were important in understandingthe findings in relation to participants' dissonancebetween working within policy guidelinesand not stigmatisingyoung people by drawing them into the criminal justice system. Attempting to understandhow professionals translatepolicy into practice, and their understandingof the roles of organisations,was an important factor that influenced the drafting of the interview schedules,where care was

required to phrasequestions that did not merely elicit answersreflecting official policy (see

Appendix 5).

Emanating from this theoretical understandingof the context of the presentyouth justice

system in Scotlandthe methodsemployed in this study were part deductivein attemptingto

apply previousknowledge to a particular policy arena,and part inductive reasoningto explain

the 'Scottish version' of multi-agencyworking in the local setting.This adaptiveapproach of

theory generationin a practice setting is commonly usedin criminological researchand has

helped to stem the criticism that policy-related research ignores theory (Bottoms 2000).

Adopting an adaptiveapproach to theory generationensures the value of previousresearch in

focussingthe choiceof researchmethods while allowing new theoriesto evolvefrom the

study(Layder 1998).

Validity, inferences and generallsability

The unique nature of each case study ensuresdifficulty in replication as they comprise of

"... so many individual descriptiveand conceptualcomponents that replicating it on a piece-

by-piecebasis would be a major undertaking" (Schofield 2000: 7 1). The reflexive accountof

139 the researchprocess is therefore "an essential element of doing research" (Jupp et al

2000:169) becauseit allows readersto considerquestions about the internal validity of the conclusions,enables informed judgementsto be madeabout whether the resultsare useful for understandingother cases,the external validity or generalisability (Schofield 2000), and highlights any ethical issues.There is much debateabout whether the results of casestudies can be generalised to other cases, not least because of failure to meet necessary methodologicalrequirements for generalisations(see Gomm et al (eds)2000). However, even the most sceptical commentatorsrecognise it is possible, albeit with the replacementof generalisabilitywith the terin 'fittingness' (Lincoln and Guba,2000). Stake (2000b:19) also believes that 'naturalistic generalisation'is possible from case studiesbecause recognising the similarities of cases in and out of one particular setting allows a "natural basisfor generalisation."

Casestudies can make inferencesabout other populationsproviding the limitations of these

inferencesare carefully noted(Gomm et al 2000), and while the issuescovered in this section

relate to the researchin Falkirk some issueswill be pertinent to future studies in Scotland.

While this chapteris a personalreflection on the researchprocess, with experiencesthat are

unique to the studentresearcher and the specific case,drawing on theoreticalframeworks and

challengesfaced by previous case study researchersilluminates the description and

contextualisesthe research.

140 Initial access

Initial accessarrangements at Falkirk Council had previously been agreedwith the major gatekeepersvia the studentshipprocess. 65 The initial proposalagreed in principle for access to staff, documentsand statisticsat the Council. It also provided initial agreementfor access to young people at the youth justice projects, subjectto fitrther informed consentfrom those likely to be involved. As access fi-om the main gatekeepersdoes not necessarilyimply continued access,gaining informed consentwas an ongoing process(Noaks and Wincup

2004), which, as it transpired, continuedto the final part of the processand writing of the thesisand wasparticularly problematicregarding young people.

While the main gatekeeperwas employedby Falkirk Council as the Criminal JusticeService

Manager,and arrangedaccess to council information at the initial proposalstage, the research design necessitatedcontact with professionalsfrom outside the employmentof the council.

This entailed additional formal representationsto a number of professional bodies seeking permission to interview their members, which have not been identified to maintain confidentiality. In practice this involved a lengthy process(at least six months)of contact by

letter and e-mailbefore access was granted.Due to the everincreasing number of Scottish

Executive sponsoredresearch projects one organisationrefused 'officially endorsed' access,

althoughpermission was given to approachmembers on an informal basis. In another

organisationpermission was granted for interview accessproviding no additional statistical

datawas sought that wasnot previouslyin the public domain.In practicethese restrictions

did not compromisethe research,but did provide an insight into the politics of the research

process where officially sponsoredgovernment research was the main priority for some

65 Gatekeepers- "7hose individuals in an organization... who have shepower to grant or withhold accessto people or situations for she purpose of therejearch " (Hughes2000: 239).

141 organisations.In the presentclimate of economy and efficiency it is understandablethat governmentresearch is the main priority, although this may question the independenceof, and limit, researchwhich does not arrive at the 'right answers' for renewedor increased funding.

Within Falkirk Council accessto young people and their project case files proved to be a challengevia the next level of gate keeping - the project worker. Initially it was envisaged

that information from personal files and reconviction data would enable the researchto

evaluatethe effectivenessof any interventionsin respectof an experimentalgroup compared

with a control group, information supplementedby the views of the young peopleobtained at

interview.66 In the first instanceproject workers were requested by the studentresearcher to

initially approachyoung peoplethey were working with, with a view to obtaining consentfor

interviews and accessto files. The workers were provided with a consentform for the young

67 / if As identified people, and parents carers required. above the variety of methods

employed were 'technical' pragmatic choices to addressthe researchquestion while also

facilitating a triangulationof the evidence.68

Document analysis

The useof documentarymaterial, in conjunctionwith the developingknowledge from other

datacollection techniques, enabled the Connect project to be locatedin a physical,historical,

political and economiccontext (Stake 2000a) at the outset.Documents were employedin

various ways, foremost as supporting evidencein the triangulation processwhile continued

I As discussedabove organisationalchanges and youth justice developmentsin Falkirk meantthat interventionswere too idiosyncratic and evolving so quickly they negatedthe possibility of an in-depth investigationfollowing this typeof design The fact that the student researcher was based in the project meant that the workers were farniliar with the focus of the research and able to obtain the initial informed consent from the young people. " The collection of similar information fium various sourcesto aid internal validity and generalisabilityof findings (Cheetharnat a] 1992).

142 access,aided by the collaborativenature of the research,was useful towardsthe conclusionof the research as additional material became available to describe the ongoing policy developments.

"Documents are things that we can read and which relate to some aspect of the social world" (Macdonald 2001:196) and include a wide variety of material. The analysis of documentsand records has a long history in social researchand is important as a tool in triangulation and in its own right (Macdonald 2001), being relevant for an understandingof both processesand outcomes(Cheetham et al 1992). Hodder (2000) identifies the difference betweendocuments prepared for personalreasons and official records,the latter which are often more difficult to accessby the social researcher.

A wide variety of documentswere consultedduring the researchprocess, some available for public accessat the time including strategicpolicy documents,annual reports, a local youth crime audit and a strategic policy evaluation framework. Other records not in the public domain included minutesof meetings,original fimding applicationsand Council and project 69 statistical databases(anonymised). There was no predeterminedsampling designto access certain documents. As the researchprogressed and familiarisation improved appropriate recordswere identified in line with the theoretical smnplingtheory of the adaptiveapproach.

This indicatesthat newdata can be progressively included in the sampleas the collection and

analysisof datagenerates the need for inclusionof additionalmaterial (Layder 1998).

' Someof thesemay becorne available under the new Freedom of Infonnation(Scotland) Act 2004

143 Statistical databases

The secondaryanalysis of statistical databasesand returns facilitated a broad descriptive overview of the characteristicsof the young people attending the youth justice projects, mainly in relation to age,gender and identified risk levels.There was limited useof statistical data in the researchand where accessedit was utilised for illustrative purposes(see tables I and 2) and to provide additional triangulation evidence. The databasefor the YJRG (held by

Connect) provided the majority of the statistics that are referred to throughout the thesis.

Additional statisticswere obtainedfrom various other databasesthat had been establishedby

Falkirk Council to provide statisticalreturns to the Scottish Executive.The statisticsused in the thesis generally relate to approximate percentagesobtained by manually counting occurrencesunder each category. While the databaseswere not complete,especially with missing information from when they were first established,the YJRG dataprovided the most comprehensiveinformation as triangulation evidence for many of the points raised by interviewees. Further statistical information was provided by the various annualreports of both Connect and Freagarrachand initial quantitative data regarding tentative reoffending rates of young peoplewas obtainedvia the YJRG evaluations(Falkirk Council 2004b; 2005).

Throughout,the limitationof secondarystatistics is recognisedwith relationto thepossibility of missingor incorrectdata (Cheetham et al 1992)and it is acknowledgedthe statisticscan only form part of the triangulationevidence.

The various documents and statistical databasesaccessed during the research provided additional evidenceand illustration for further understandingof the experiencesof the respondentsin the study. Individually their usewould have beenlimited as most were written for a specific audienceand context (Macdonald 2001) so that therewas no 'original' or 'true'

144 meaningto thesetexts (Hodder 2000) outside of this context. With respectto the minutesof

Connect's developmentmeetings the contextual and literal understandingof these would have been severelylimited if the studentresearcher had not been embeddedin the team and presentat many of the meetings.Speculating for future practice it may be interestingto note if minuteswill be produceddifferently to facilitate new accessarrangements introduced by the Freedomof Information (Scotland) Act, enabling minutes to be easily understoodin contextwithout extensiveknowledge of the subject.

Accessingdocuments and Connectdatabases was not problematic, anotherprocess aided by the collaborative nature of the research and the student researcherbeing 'accepted' as a memberof the project. At no time was permissionto accesscouncil documentsrefused and research and information services, and administrative staff at Connect, were particularly helpful in accessingdatabases and generatingsecondary statistics. The quality and usefulness of the statistical returns and databaseswas variable and the variable data sourcesresulted in some discrepanciesin statistics becauseof missing and incomplete data. Access to first generation data like the Asset forms would have been preferable, but as discussedlater consentfrom young peopleto accesspersonal data proved elusive.

Observadon

The 'constancy of presence' (Burnett and Appleton 2004) of the student researcherat

Connect, and aspectsof design adapted from action research,involved an observational componentto the research,although participant observationwas not the primary method of data collection. Its use initially was for familiarisation in the setting and the student researcherbeing acceptedby the project staff (Bryman 2001). As the researchprogressed,

145 observation facilitated the development of appropriate interview questions (Cheetham et al

1992).

A log was kept during the researchwhich was employedinitially to record general'thoughts and feelings' and observations. It was not a detailed recording of daily activities or conversationsbetween studentresearcher and staff at Connect. In addition to serving as a reminder of some of the issuesto discussin interviews the log allowed for methodological and analytical notes to be combined,forming the basisof this reflexive account.At the mid point of the researchthese notes were collated into a word document,although the ongoing natureof the researchand datacollection (GillhaTn2000; Layder 1998) meantthat additional material was included during the writing up process.

Systematicparticipant observationmay have resultedin a very different researchexperience andperhaps a less 'open' relationshipwith the agenciesinvolved. Observationmay alsohave generateddifferent data, alternatively it may have made respondentsin interviews more guarded. Ultimately ethical practice required that Connect staff especially were clear that they were not being observed in their daily practice. It would have been ethically

unacceptableto begintaking surreptitiousfieldnotes having been accepted as a 'member'of

the team throughthe original researchproposal with no mentionof this. The utilisationof

'covert' observationis the subjectof much debatein socialresearch, although Wardhaugh

(2000)suggests that anyobservation is merelyon a continuumof overt-covert,and ultimately

it was the student researcher'sdecision that any systematic observation of daily practice

would havebeen ethically unacceptable.

146 In the first year of the research,while the studentresearcher was also involved in research training at university, attendanceat the Connect project was one day a week on the team meeting day. Involvementwith team developmentmeetings during this time was, in reality, a combination of observationand action research.The project staff were in the early stagesof their team's developmentand they were eagerto remain informed aboutwider youth justice developmentsand research regarding multi-professional teams. While attendanceat these meetingswas constructive, and aided the fwniliarisation process,it was ironic that by the time the actual interviews commencedvirtually all of the team had moved on to new posts.

This necessitateda ftu-therfwniliarisation processwith the new team membersalthough by that time, for good or bad, the studentresearcher was acceptedas part of the team.70 By the time the fieldwork started and there was more regular attendanceat the project the student researcher'sname was included in all 'team' correspondence,information and e-mails. As time progressedand new team members arrived who were unfamiliar with the student researcher'srole, more care was neededto avoid "over identification with the project and steppingbeyond predetermined responsibilities and roles" (Cheetharnet al 1992: 45), all of which meant continually redefining and revisiting the ethical standardsregarding role and position in the team.

As agreedin the original researchproposal, the collaborativeaspect of the studentshipalso includedattendance at trainingand development events which were relevant to theresearch.

These included attendingformal risk assessmenttraining and the developmentof an frameworkfor justice71 Attendance evaluation youth . at trainingevents and workshops was againa hybrid of observationand action researchas someincluded planned contributions

" At onepoint duringthe researchprocess only oneteam member had been at Connectlonger than the studentresearcher. A difficult mition for thestudent researcher both in ternisof definingthe role and naintaining independence. Falkirkwas one of thepilot areasfor the 'Decider'youth justice evaluation ftmework (seeCJSWDC 2004)

147 about the research experience,while others required impromptu contributions following

specific questions.

Invitations to attendteam building away dayswere declined.While thesemay haveprovided more insight into the bonding of the multi-professionalteam, it was felt inappropriate to

attend, not actually being a 'real' memberof the team. This avoidedover identification and

allowed the student researcherto maintain independenceas much as possible. Towards the

conclusion of the research,occasional development days were attended by the student

researcher(outdoor activities excluded), when attendancewas requestedby the Connect

managerwho believed sharing the research findings to date would be useful in planning

future developmentsof the project.

Other observationsduring the researchincluded attendanceat a number of strategic and

practice meetings.Attendance at the YJRG was purely observationalto aid familiarisation

with the processesand contextualiseinformation collected from interviews. Attendanceat

the Falkirk Youth Justice Strategy Group was also observational,but again included some

contribution regarding the nature of the researchand some interim findings. Attendanceat

both groupsalso providedan additionalgate keeping contact through group membersfor fiiture interviews.

Interviews

Interviews are among the most widely usedmethods of data collection in the social sciences

and are a versatile approach for research becauseof the different types which include

questionnaires,structured and semi-structured/ unstructuredinterviews (Baker 1997;Rubin

148 and Rubin 1995).The type of interview style will be determinedby the information required and / or the epistemologicalposition of the researcher.

Utilisation of in-depth interview as the primary tool for data collection facilitated detailed exploration of meanings,perspectives and experiencesin relation to the researchquestion.

"Each individual has his her individual (Fontana or own ... perspective on the world" and Frey 2000:668) and it is this individual world view that was consideredto be important in understandingthe processesinvolved in the development of multi-agency youth justice responses.It is unlikely this perspectivewould have been uncoveredby a more structured interview technique.

Holstein and Gubrium (1997) refer to in-depth interviews as enabling understandingof the

'whats' and 'hows' of the situation. The 'whats' refer to substantiveinformation about specific questions and the 'hows' refer to the interactional and contextual nature of the situation.Attention to both of thesein the researchprocess ensures a clearer understandingof the case than a simple description of the findings and may also facilitate deductive and inductive theorising(Holstein andGubrium 1997;Layder 1998).

The choice of interview as the predominantdata collection method was also guided by the fact that observationof practice and analysisof documentsalone may only have focussedon practice that reflected guidance issued in local standardsand guidelines. In-depth interviewing of the key stakeholders allowed a more detailed understanding of how professionalsinterpreted and implementedpolicy into practice, providing ftuther insight into the relationshipbetween agency and structure(Giddens 1984)and the defining of roles.

149 Sampling procedure for interview subjects

As part of case study methodology the process of interviewing was "enormously time consuming" (GillhaTn 2000:61) and, as Gillham suggested,it was apparentthat as a lone studentresearcher, interviewing all of the peopleinvolved with the youthjustice projectswas unrealistic. The sampling of interview candidatesin case studies has been the subject of controversydue to the difficulty of identifying interviewees,obtaining agreementand access.

The result being that rarely is a random selectionof the population obtained,although Adams

(2000) has suggestedthis is not necessarydue to the qualitative nature of the research strategy.The samplingprocedure was again adaptedfrom the theoretical samplingapproach describedby Layder (1998). Interview subjectswere identified progressivelyas the research

developedin relationto gainingincreased understanding of the operationof Connectand

selection of those informants through which the multi-agency arrangementscould best be

understood(Stake 2000a).

As Connect constituted the major focus of the researchit was important to interview all project workers and managers to obtain a wide variety of views. Beyond Connect,

professionalsclosely involved with referrals (see appendix 6) and daily contact with the

project were the next priority as they were more likely to have experienceand direct

knowledgeof the project.Staff at Freagarrachwere especiallypertinent to this becauseof

their closeworking arrangementswith Connect.It was also important to obtain a managerial

and / or strategic view of the youth justice systein and therefore interviews with strategy

group memberswere included. This sample of interviewees was able to provide a cross

section of experiencesrelating to working in a multi-agencysetting and their perceptionsof

theeffectiveness of this.

150 As young people should be an integral part of the partnership(Gibbs 2001a) interviewing them soughtto elicit their views on their experiencesat the individual projectsrather than an overall reflection on the partnership arrangements.Focussing on the young people's experiencesof the youth justice projectsand partner agencies it was envisagedthere would be

little or no sensitivetopics to be covered,although one has to be alert for this probability.

Confidentiality of all respondentswas a key feature of the researchand was especially important for this group of young people already labelled by their involvement in the youth justice system.Records of nameswere not kept at all for this group of intervieweesto avoid the possibility of any breachof confidentiality.

The importanceafforded to the confidentiality issuewas highlighted to the young peopleby their key workers at initial requestsfor consent.It was reinforced at the commencementof each interview, where before signing a consentform the young people were reminded that they could refuse to co-operate,that if they did so this would not affect the service they received,that the interviews wereconfidential, what the interview datawould be used for and

that key workers would not be informed of their content. A couple of young people asked

searchingquestions about the researchand one enquiredat the conclusionof the research

why the student researcherhad asked certain questions.These questionsby young people

wereinteresting in that they identifiedcertain areas that couldhave been explained better in

the first instance,they were an ongoing learning experiencefor the next interviews. It was

also explainedto young peopleabout the limits of confidentiality if information was imparted

during the interview that put people at risk of hann, although as discussedabove the

possibility of this was lessenedby the nature of the interview questions.In practice young

people seemedaware of the limits of confidentiality, attributed by the studentresearcher to

151 their completionof consentforms that explainedissues of confidentiality at the beginningof their contactwith the youth justice projects.

As with the samplingtechniques employed for other datacollection methods,the selectionof young people was subjectto the vagariesof the researchand the willingness of key workers

to continually rememberto ask young people. Samplingwas affectedby accessproblems and was restricted to thosewho came to the office for appointmentsand were identified by the key workers as likely to want to share their experiences.Difficulties associated with obtaining parental / carer consentfor the under 16 year olds (key workers having to do the extra home visits) meant that respondentswere restricted to those over 16 years of age.

Attempts to obtain parental/ carer consentfrom the membersof the 'Parenting Programme'

as an alternativeaccess technique were not successfulas staff memberswere unable to follow

this up in the requiredtime.

A total of forty-six individual interviews and two group interviews were undertakenwith

professionalsand young people. Interviews lasted for between thirty and ninety minutes, a

time determinedby the knowledgeand experienceof the interview subjects.As Connectwas

the focusof the researchall nine operationalstaff memberswere interviewed. Together with

Freagarrachthe two projectsprovided the largestnumber of interview participants(thirteen in

total). From contactwith the projectsit becameclear that social work field teamswere

providingthe greatest number of referralsand therefore eleven social workers and managers

were interviewed.72 Social work managerswere the gatekeepersfor the socialworkers and

identified appropriatepotential intervieweesfor the studentresearcher to contact,initially by

e-mail with details of the researchand what would be required in the interview process.The

I The YJRG evaluation (Falkirk Council 200% published at a later date,indicated that 780Aof referrals were from social work teans and appendix5 figures,covering a longertime period, indicate 680Aof referrals were fiom social work tearns.

152 legal profession provided the remainderof the individual professionalinterviewees and as

73 indicated earlier were accessedthrough professional organisationswhere appropriate. All but six of the interviews were recordedand transcribed,four individuals were not recorded

(by their choice) and there were two equipment malftmctions. After the first, of five, interviews with young people, recordingwas suspendeddue to the problems encounteredin obtaining prior consentand the, at times, unscheduledinterviews sessions.When recordings were not madenotes were taken during the interview, followed later by the word processing of detailednotes.

The two group interviews were conducted on the recommendationsof the respective managerswho suggestedthis would ensuremaximum co-operationand attendance,as they were undertakenat the respective team meetings. These groups were social work practice

teams, one of which was identified by the snowball technique, that is, it was a group

previously not consideredfor interview and was 'recommended' to the studentresearcher

during another interview. As the group interviews took place towards the conclusion of the

interview timetable a slightly different format was designedto probe ftuther some of the

substantiveareas that had been raised at the individual interviews. A decision was madenot

to requestrecording of thesegroup interviews due to the natureof the processand having to

gain consentfrom all concerned.Detailed noteswere taken during the group interviews and

upgradedafterwards.

73Various professionalswe grouped under 'legal profession' to maintain anonyn-dty,furdier possible identifying details have also been omitted.

153 74 Interview design- what to ask

In a casestudy many of the critical issuesmay be known in advanceand researchersknow

which events,problems and relationshipswill be important (Stake 2000). As such a semi- structured, in-depth format for interviewing was appropriate, designed to gather

understandingof respondentsexperiences and perceptionsof youth justice arrangements

(Fontana and Frey 2000). The directive part (Fontana and Frey 2000) of the schedule

consisted of questions, issues and topics identified previously as being important to the

researchquestion. Questionswere asked in any order dependingon how the interview was

progressing,or the assessedknowledge (from the studentresearcher) of the respondenton

any particular topic. If a respondentwas more familiar with one particular aspectof the topic

sharingtheir experiencesin greaterdetail was encouragedas long as it remainedpertinent to

the researchquestion. The semi-structuredin-depth design facilitated this and allowed for

supplementary questions emerging from interview responses.However, as part of the

learning processthe amountof latitude allowed for the respondentsnarrowed as the research

progressedand the increasingrelevance of material becamemore apparent.

Following a lengthy interview scheduledesign process,necessitated by the changing nature

of the youth justice projects and the researchdesign in the first year, the interview topics

were groupedinto four substantiveareas, informed by the researchquestion and the findings

from previous research.These areasincluded national and local youth justice policy, local

multi-agcncy and partnershiparrangements, multi-professional teams and operationalaspects

of Connect and Freagarrach,which formed the basis of the initial coding for analysis.

74Appendix 5 containsa compositeintemiew schedule.

154 Operationalquestions also included referencesto multi-agencyand policy areasto easethe interview process,but were codedunder the substantiveareas for analysis.

The emphasison theseareas and specific questionsdiffered for eachgroup of respondentsas knowledge levels varied relating to roles. Even within each group, knowledge and understanding differed - for example it quickly became apparent that the different roles of children and families and criminal justice social workers meant different understanding of what constituted a 'programme' and what was expected of Connect and Freagarrach. The open ended design of the schedule aided this process, as very quickly after the commencement of each interview it was possible to identify which areas the respondents 75 were familiar with and subsequentlyfocus more, or less, on these. The interviews, indeed the researchdesign, were not a test of what individuals knew about the partnershipsand projects. The student researcherbelieved that repeatednegative responsesby respondents, pertaining to their knowledge of different practice areas,may have disrupted the interview relationshipthrough respondentsbecoming defensive in relation to future questions.

By default, rather than design, the first twelve interviews were conducted before the establishmentof the YJRG. While the studentresearcher had knowledge that the group was being establishedthe exigenciesof the servicesaffected the timing of its introduction, over which therewas no researchcontrol. Its introductionduring the fieldwork facilitatedsome comparisonof perceptionsprior to, and after,the introductionof the referralgroup, finther highlighting the developmental nature of the policy and research process. Some of the individuals interviewed were, or became,members of the YJRG and three of the Comect

" This is reflected in the findings chaptersas the rnost relevantinformation for each sectioncarne from different professionalsdepending on their experiences.

155 staff group were interviewed a second time after its introduction to ascertain their initial views on its implementation.

Challengesencountered during the research process

The major obstacle encounteredwas obtaining signed consent forms from young people.

Over a period of nine months (with regularprompting) five consentforms had been obtained and a changeof methodsregarding accessand consentwas required. While key workers at

Connect agreed in principle to inform young people about the researchand obtain initial consent,in practice this proved difficult. Understandably,this researchwas not a priority in relation to the myriad of tasksrequired to be undertakenby workers, which included consent forms for police access to reconviction data in addition to completing forms for the assessmentprocess and various forms to satisfy a variety of funding agencies.

it was apparent that comprehensiveinformation from case files regarding the social characteristicsof the young peoplecould not be obtaineddue to the small numbersof consent forms which were returned.However, as the researchdeveloped with a changein design to focus on the partnershipand developmentalaspects of youth justice arrangements,data about the individual characteristicsof the young people becameless significant to the research.

While accessto casefiles itself did not precipitatea variationin the researchdesign, the difficulty of obtainingconsent was a clear reminderof the problemsfacing researchers in socialwork and criminology.The studentresearcher underestimated the challengesfaced in

obtainingethically acceptableaccess to youngpeople as ethicalconsiderations dictated that

accessingcase files was not possible without prior specific consentfrom the young people.

Young peopledid sign a generalconsent form prior to their involvementat both Connectand

156 Freagarrach,consenting to individual data being collected and used by the projects for a number of purposes,including offending records for researchand evaluation. The student researcherfelt this was not an explicit consentthat coveredindependent research for this case study.

A limited amount of data about the young people attending the project was accessed anonymously through the Connect database.This secondaryinformation related to the infonnation that had been collated for the YJRG database,and the aggregateddata included in this thesisensured the anonymity of the young peoplebecause there were no referencesto individual circumstances.The aggregateddata related to information collated since the establishmentof the referral group; previously there was no systematicmonitoring of the young people entering the project. As mentionedin Chapter Four data had previously been collectedto securefunding ratherthan as a monitoring and evaluationexercise.

The inclusion of young peoplein the interview process,as with accessto casefiles, presented many challenges.Similar to case file access,the developmentof the researchquestion to focus on partnershipsand multi-agencyworking meant that the contribution of young people wasnot centralto answeringthe research question. It wasrecognised that eliciting theviews of young people in respectof their experienceswithin the various partnershiparrangements would provide a different perspective on the multi-agency aspect of the work than that provided by professionals.However, it was also acknowledgedby the studentresearcher that the experiencesof young peoplewere more likely to be limited to one project, rather than any overview of the multi-agencymodel.

157 The major difficulties experiencedwere that of gaining the informed consentof young people to participate in interviews, a challengethat was underestimatedby the studentresearcher, and the failure of young peopleto attend meetingswith their project worker. The number of potential interviews (identified after discussionwith the relevantproject workers) was twice the actual sample becausemany young people did not attend their meetings with staff.

Unfortunately there was no easy answer to this beyond attempting to rearrange via the worker. On reflection, the student researchercould have been more pro-active in following

up potential interviewees with the workers to maximise the opportunities for identifying

young peoplewilling to participate.

The changeof premisesfor Connectduring the final twelve months of the interview process

enabled the student researcherto be at the office on some occasionswhen young people

arrived for appointments(in the previous premisesyoung peoplewere not seenat the office),

increasing the opportunities for interviewing young people. This enabled workers to be

prompted to request initial consent if it was known young people were due to attend,

followed up quickly by interviews if consentwas obtained. While this enableda number of

interviews with young peopleto be obtainedthe reality was that it was limited to those over

the age of 16 as parental consentwas not available at such short notice.76 Additionally, the

situation was uncomfortable for the student researcheras there was a feeling of 'hanging

around' waiting to approachyoung peoplewhen they cameto the office. Attempts to mitigate

this included asking workers aheadof time to speakto the young people and obtain written

consent,although this encounteredsimilar difficulties to thosementioned above.

' At this time requestswere still being made to workers about approachingparents and young people on home visits for consent for interviews.

158 While those young people interviewed were unable to provide detailed comment on the partnerships,their views provided additional support for the perceptionsof the professionals regarding communication and casemanagement issues, and provided an insight into young people's experiencesof practice. Overall the accessand interview processwith the young people proved a particularly delicate and haphazardprocess requiring constantredefining of the accessissues. It is acknowledgedthat additional interviews with young peoplemay have providedfurther insight aboutthe complexity of the multi-agencyarrangements.

Analysis

The initial analysisof the interviews, informed by the need to generateinitial feedbackfor

Falkirk Council, involved categorisingthe responsesunder the substantiveareas identified above. This was accomplishedmanually in the initial stagesto facilitate broad feedback.

Further analysiswas undertakenwith the Nvivo, softwarepackage involving tree coding. Pre- codes were applied relating to the substantiveareas identified and inforined by previous research.While the pre-coding processfacilitated a deductiveanalysis, ongoing coding as a responseto the data generatedintroduced an inductive processand allowed for the generation of findings and explanations.This was most evident in the areaof casemanagement which did not feature as specific questions.Again this adaptive approachproved useful in this policy-relatedresearch as the substantivefocus of investigationwas supplementedby new findings (Layder 1998).

159 Immersion in the subject

In the initial research proposal it was recognised that the student researcherwould be

embeddedin the Council for a considerableperiod during the researchprocess. What was not

known at that time was where,with whom and what exactly the role would be. By the time

the researchcommenced Connect had been establishedas Falkirk Council's responseto the

Youth Crime Review (Scottish Executive 2000) and as Connect was to be, together with

Freagarrach,the focus for 'specialist' youth justice provision the student researcherwas

located in this team. It was also agreedat this point that ongoing findings from the research

would be disseminatedon a regular basis and there would be a wider contribution from the

student researcherto the developmentof this new team with regardsto broader theoretical

issuesrelating to multi-professionalteams and youth justice. It is becauseof the natureof this

arrangementthat aspectsof action researchmethods have beenmentioned as the amount,and nature,of contact exceededwhat is usual for most casestudies.

The professionalbackground of the studentresearcher, coming from a practicerather than an

academicenvironment, was a challengein itself especially being located in a practice team

within the Housing and Social Work Department for the fieldwork. This background was

perhapsadditional to the challengesfacing researchersin field settings,as the practice team

was awareof the recent practice,managerial and policy experiencesof the studentresearcher.

Reiner(2000) refers to this professionalbackground when involved in researchas 'outside

insiders'and suggests there are some benefits and somenegative points regarding this. It was

probably most helpful in acceptanceby, and fwniliarisation with, the Connect team at the

initial stagesof the casestudy. Daily interactionwith team memberswas not encumberedby

a lack of understandingof terms (with social workers at least) andthere was also an empathic

160 understandingof the challengesfaced in their daily work with young people. It may also be that the studentresearcher role, not viewed as a social worker, also helped in relationships with otherprofessionals in the team.Where the professionalbackground was lesshelpful was that on occasionsthe knowledge expectedof, or attributed to, the student researcherwas greaterthan the reality!

Questionsdirected to the studentresearcher were also problematic at times as not only was researchknowledge being accessed,there was the additional responsibility of professional and practice knowledgewhich could not be conveniently discardedor forgotten. As part of the collaborativeaspect of the study questionsabout policy or legislative issueswere asked by staff and answered(hopefully accurately). This was not consideredto be incompatible with the expectedknowledge possessed by a studentresearcher embedded in a practiceteam, although in effect it remained an area of uncertainty, not knowing if this constituted oversteppingthe role. The student researcher'sknowledge comprised of professional and researchexperience and differentiating the sourceat times was all but impossible. However,

all concerned were professional enough not to seek or offer advice regarding specific

operationalissues, which would have compromisedthe researchposition as well as being

ethically unacceptable.

Suchdilemmas exacerbated at timesthe dualityof thesituation as both studentresearcher and

(ex)professionaland certainly called for impromptu decision making as no text and

guidelinescould prepareone for all scenarios(Noaks and Wincup 2004). To aid the ethical aspectsof these situations generalresponses were usually provided, with a proviso to check with their manager,unless it was clear they were questionspertaining to specific cases(very rare), which were sidesteppedas tactfully as possible.Care was neededin all situationsnot to

161 impart views inconsistent with the role of student researcher. In team meetings, especially when asked to contribute research knowledge, there was no hesitation in making contributions. Overall, as much care as possible was taken to ensure any response to questions or advice was appropriate to the role of student researcher to avoid the possibility of unethicalpractice.

Perhapsmore difficult to work through were the instanceswhere observedpractice did not reflect 'best practice' in relation to the substantiveresearch areas, especially regarding the multi-agency and 'what works' discourses.As the collaborative aspect of the student researcher'srole may have 'allowed' comment to be made on these matters, action or inaction caused a considerableamount of dissonance.This dilemma becamemore complicatedas someof the initial analysisof the interviews also highlighted concernsfrom respondentson specific aspectsof policy and practice. Therewere no easysolutions to these situations, which were dealt with on a case-by-casebasis. The underlying ethical considerationin thesesituations was that the studentresearcher's role was not as a consultant and care was always taken not to overstepthe researchrole. Despitethis, the action research aspectof the study and expectationsof continuing feedbackresulted at times in an unclear demarcationof appropriateand inappropriate comment.

Overall,the professionalbackground of thestudent researcher seemed to be beneficialto the researchrole in this particular case study and the collaborativenature of the research enhancedthe study and the learning. Wble past experiencemay not have smoothedthe way for ongoing access(Bryman 2001), it helped in being acceptedas a memberof the teaxn.The comment 'ivory tower' researcherswas heard once at the beginning, following which acceptanceinto the setting was such that the student researcherwas often referred to as a

162 'member' of the team in introductionsto visitors, althoughthe attributedrole varied between

'student', 'student researcher'and 'researcher',reflecting difficulties for the team members

in describing the role. The challengesof being immersed in a practice team, with past professional experience, should not be underestimatedas values and boundaries were

constantly being pushed. This is in addition to not being perceived as siding with staff,

management,or individuals (Liebling 2001). While daunting at the time, in retrospectthese

challengesenhanced the researchexperience, contributed to the reflexive processand brought

a perspectiveto the researchthat would otherwisehave been absent.

Exit strategy

Negotiating an exit from an organisation.and fieldwork can be problematicand is a part of the

researchprocess that hasreceived little theoreticalinterest (Bryman 2001; Smith andWincup

2000). As with other areasof qualitative researchthere are few clear guidelinesto this and it

remains the decision of the researcherwhen to sever contact with the organisation.In this

researchthe decisionwas complicatedby the fact that data collection was continuing to the

last, involving document analysis of the developing policy agenda. The difficulties

experiencedin obtaining consensualaccess to young people also resulted in that part of the

interview processcontinuing longer than planned.The collaborativeaspect of the studentship

also necessitatedongoing contact with the organisationwith regardsto disseminationof

findings.In the last yearof the researchplanned contact with the projectwas reduced to one

day a week, which was a similar level of contact to the first year. On occasionsthere was

additional contact regarding ongoing data collection although this was difficult to organise

because of the time limits in writing up the findings. This was especially important

considering the policy developmentsregarding the new models for youth justice service

163 delivery in Falkirk and the drafting of new strategicplans. Overall a clear exit strategywas difficult to adhereto becauseof the expectationof ongoing disseminatingof findings, and in retrospectthere were no correctanswers.

Dissemination of findings

From an academicaspect the primary output of the researchwas the presentthesis, with work continuing on analysisand write-up until handedin. However, the collaborativenature of the case studentshipentailed disseminationof findings at regular intervals during the research processand an understandingof a final report andpresentation at its conclusion.The ongoing nature of data collection and analysis associatedwith case studies (Gillharn 2000) and adaptive theory (Layder 1998) resulted in disseminationof interim findings without final analysis and without final confirmation of validity. This in itself may be an ethical and technical issue, but was also a personal issue with potential consequencesfor the student researcherregarding consistency,as findings were being continually updated and refined after initial feedbackhad beenprovided.

Dissemination of interim and final findings does not of course guaranteethat the non- academic partner will utilise them in policy decisions, indeed it has been suggestedthat

"criminological research has little direct, immediateimpact on crime and control policy or practice" (Noaksand Wincup 2004: 3 3). However,utilised or not therewas an expectation of this ongoingdissemination and as a studentresearcher it hasbeen daunting at timesduring the experienceto intellectualisethe fact that local policy makers may employ some of the findings in practicebefore the analysishas been completed.This also relatesto the difficulty

164 in adheringto a clear exit strategy as changeswere occurring in local practice to the end of the thesisthat had implications for its satisfactorycompletion.

These personal issues are independentof the challengesfaced normally in disseminating research findings. When engaged in close collaborative research involving substantial ongoing contact with membersof the organisation the appropriatenessof sharing interim findings can be a complicated procedure to reach agreement on. This was probably exacerbatedin the present researchby the constantly developing policy regarding youth justice, as Falkirk Council were aiming to develop their policy in line with the national agendabut alsowith regardsto best practicelocally.

No specific agreementsabout the form disseminationwould take were decided at the beginningbeyond the fact that any major issuesthat could potentially affect the organisation to deliver effective serviceswould be sharedat an early stage.Even with this agreementand closecollaboration there was, and is, no guaranteethat the presentresearch produced 'results' that provided the answersthat Falkirk requiredor would be incorporatedinto future policy.

In practice, actual feedback commenced after the majority of the interviews with professionals were completed in August 2004. Despite ongoing observation, document analysis and interviews with young people there was an expectation of findings being disseminatedat this point. Initially verbalinterim findingswere sharedwith the two youth justice projects after a short written report was provided to the field supervisor.Following a more detailedanalysis a more comprehensivereport was preparedfor the field supervisorand findings relating directly to Connectwere sharedat a team developmentday aiming to shape

165 the serviceand build on the experiencesto date. Interim findings were particularly pertinent at this point.

Following the submissionof the first full draft of the thesis it was agreedthat the student researcherwould presentthe findings in full at a seminarday for all staff involved in youth justice at Falkirk Council. It was felt this seminar would also provide an opportunity for feedback to date on changes and improvements in the projects and multi-agency arrangementssince the interviews were completed.As the interviews constitutedthe major method of data collection and subsequentanalysis it was important the fmal thesis reflected correctly ongoing developmentsthat were not known at the time of the fieldwork, but which had potential to reflect positively or negatively on the substantivefindings. At the time of writing no seminar had been arranged and the major feedback had been to the senior managementgroup in Fafldrk.

Despite an expectationof appropriate feedback at no time during the disseminationof the findings was any pressureapplied to the studentresearcher by the non-academicpartner to changeany findings to fit a particular agenda(see Noaks and Wincup,2004). The only major concern,and a valid point recognisedby the studentresearcher, was the evolving nature of the youth justice policy and serviceprovision which meant that some of the issues highlightedin the researchhad beenaddressed, or amended,as part of the developmental process.How many of thesechanges were a result of the ongoingdissemination of the findings was difficult to quantify.

166 CONCLUSION

While the relationship betweenresearch and policy is complex (Clarke 2001), this study is firmly rooted in the areaof applied policy-related researchwith an expectationof adopting some of the findings into future policy. Given the complexity of the relationship between researchand policy and practice (Nutley et al 2003) the extent to which the findings will be dircctly utilised by Falkirk Council is unknown.

The reflexive descriptionof the researchprocess in this chapteremphasises the validity of the findings andthe ability to make inferencesto other casesthat are relevantto the wider policy andpractice debate.This reflexive processmay also encourageother professionalsinvolved in social welfare provision to enter into the researchfield, either within their organisation,or by taking a stepoutside their daily practice.There is little doubt that the researchprocess has been an interesting and rewarding experienceenhanced by the collaborative aspect of the study and the professionalbackground of the student researcher.Challenges were frequent during the case study from conception to completion and arose from the methodological rigour involved in the actualresearch and the personalexperiences of the studentresearcher.

The multi-methodsadopted in a casestudy frameworkwere the appropriatemethods to analysethe Connectproject andresulted in a study that brought understandingto the complex issueof multi-agencyyouth justice work in a political and practiceenvironment that differs

from the majority of internationaljurisdictions. This rich understandingwas possiblebecause of the immersion of the studentresearcher in a multi-professionalteam and the acceptanceby the organisationof this additional 'member' of the team for nearly four years. Immersion in

167 the subject also provided more insight into the complexity and difficulty of engagingwith young peoplewho havebeen excluded from many aspectsof mainstreamsociety.

168 CHAPTER SIX

PERCEPTIONS OF POLICY

(Consensusor disagreementwith policy directions)

The following three chaptersexamine the findings of the researchin relation to three broad areas;professional perceptions of national and local youth justice policy, understandingof actual service provision in Falkirk and the experiences of multi-agency working arrangementsin the local area. Chapters Six and Seven have substantial crossover as individuals' understandingof, and views on, the local youth justice projectswere linked to their perceptionsof wider youth justice policy. While the connectionsbetween partnership working and overall perceptions of policy were not explicitly apparent, Chapter Eight highlights the inherent difficulties in achieving shared objectives where diverse opinions exist.

This chapterexamines the views of professionalsabout national and local policy, and the position of Connect within these. Given the concerns about the deprofessionAlisationof criminal justice work (Pitts 1992) through encroachingmanagerialism (Tsui and Cheung

2004), professional perceptionson policy developmentsare likely to give some indication abouthow policy will be translatedinto practicewhich is a combinationof guidelinesand how professionalsinterpret them (Eadie and Canton2002). Beginning with an examinationof how respondentsviewed youth justice work and the role of National Standards,the discussionthen encompassesperceptions of the policy at the interfaceof the child and adult systems.It is at this transition point that there is particular causefor concernabout how best to deal with young peoplewho offend (Kennedy andMcIvor 1992; ScottishExecutive 2000).

169 Discussion of the role of diversion, Youth Courts and Fast Track Hearings places the theoreticaldebate in the contemporaryScottish policy context,with a particular emphasison the 15 to 17 year old agegroup who havebeen identified as a particular causefor concernat the interfaceposition (ScottishExecutive 2000).

As discussedin ChaptersTwo and Three, constantlydeveloping policy has implications for professionalsin implementing new initiatives and keeping abreastof the changes.Not all respondentswere familiar with national developmentsand consequentlyareas of questioning were not pursued if it was clear there was little knowledge of specific initiatives. Lack of knowledge about policy is perhaps an interesting finding in its own right, becausethe questionof how local developmentslink to broaderpolicy is answeredif people are unaware of the wider picture. In such circumstancesthe concerns about strategic communication referred to in ChaptersSeven and Eight becomerelevant to understandinglocal policy and practice.Practitioners may potentially be operatingwithout a broaderreference point for their work. Unless otherwise statedthe responsesused as evidencein this chapterwere elicited

from legal professionals,social workers andproject workers.

INTEGRATION OF NATIONAL AND LOCAL POLICY

Paradoxically, sincethe establishmentof a Scottish Parliamentthe English model for youth justice provision, widely perceived as being more punitive (Bala and Bromwich 2002;

Muncie 2002; Pitts 2001), may be becoming more influential in Scotland. Concernshave

been expressedabout the increasedpunitive rhetoric associatedwith policy statementsin

Scotland (Whyte 2003a;2004b). This 'populist punitiveness' (Morgan 2004), is explainedby

politicians reacting to widespread feelings Of insecurity about youth offending and then

170 operatingon the basis of spin (Kemph-Leonardand Peterson2002). Certainly in the lead up

to the 2005 UK electionsmedia attentionon youth justice in Scotlandwas widespread.

A number of respondentsfrom various professionalgroups expressedconcern aboutpresent developmentsin Scotland,with specific referenceat times to the Englandand Wales model.

This children and families social worker expressedthis as "here we are going down the

English route, " with England perceived as a negative role model. The same worker also askedthis rhetorical questionin relation to the presentyouth justice:

"Where do youfeel youthjustice sits, doesitfit with the Children's Hearings System,or

doesit sit with criminaljustice?"

The questionwas being raiseddespite statements from the ScottishExecutive that "specialist

servicesfor children and young people who offend are part of a wider networkof children's services" (Scottish Executive 2002d:5). Such integrated children's services suggest that young people should be seenas children first (Drakeford 2001) and servicesmade available that meet their complex needsin a broad arenaof social policy (Goldson 2005b). However,

National Standardsspecifically for youth justice highlight some of the contradictions in

Scottish policy. Youth offending would appearto have beenidentified as a separateconcern, requiring its own standardsbefore the publication of those for other children's services,and receiving specific funding.

The Standardsdo indicate that "all agencieshave a responsibility to work togetherto deliver

the changes" (Scottish Executive 2002a:1), but despite the focus on working together, a number of respondents(generally criminal justice social workers and youth justice project

171 staff who were familiar with the Standards)believed that too much emphasiswas placed on the youth justice projects to provide the servicesand meet the Standards. As this criminal justice social worker suggested,to meet the needs of the young people "the youth justice arrangements,the Standardsand the way of working with young people, has to be across the board."

A memberof the Connectteam was similarly concernedthat:

"There is a danger that you view youth justice as just being the responsibility of

ourselves,Freagarrach, and maybeMatrixfor the youngerpeople, but I would say that

any service working with young people has some sort of responsibility for youth

justice. "

As an example of this the limited input of educationand housing in working with young peoplein trouble was identified in the local audit (Falkirk Council 2003).The recent 'Inquiry into Youth Justice Report' (Scottish Parliament 2005) also highlighted the focus placed on social work departmentsfor dealing with young peopleinvolved in offending.

While the National Standardsand accompanyingpolicy documentsreiterate the corporate responsibility,their lack of clarity was commentedon by a numberof people.This criminal justiceworker was particularly critical:

"The justice just youth standards they were just appalling actually ...they were so know it document." amorphous,you sort of there wasn't anything... seemsjusta useless

172 Alternately, a number of youth justice project staff viewed the flexibility of the standardsas useful in developing services.The fact that they were 'amorphous' was viewed positively, allowing local policy to be developedto meet local needand increasingthe discretionof staff

(Eadie and Canton 2002), rather than being directed by central government.However, such flexibility can alsolead to net widening, especiallyif servicesare delivered within the narrow confinesof youthjustice (Goldson 2005b).

While guidance issued by the Executive (Scottish Executive 2000; 2002a; 2002d; 2004d) promotesintegrated working and sharedresponsibility therewas concernabout how this is to be achieved,given the lack of clear direction nationally and locally. While somerespondents were able to refer to national guidelines, nobody referred to local policy documents.

Operationalstaff were largely unsure of the local wider strategic policy relating to young peopleand the following commentsfrom project workers and criminal justice social workers were representativeof this:

"I'm sure that the great and the good in theform of the young person's strategygroup

have some kind of overall policy. But that will differ and different people will have

differentvested interests. "

"I have absolutely not got a scoobyabout the YouthJustice Strategy Group I

don't thinkthey really knowwhat we're at"

"I think that the higher you go, the things like the Youth Justice Strategy Group, the

more meaninglessit becomesto people on the ground"

173 Specifically in relation to the Falkirk Youth JusticeStrategy Group this memberwas awareof its role but believed it was:

"Not doing it be doing I really what should yet ..... would say that it's an information sharing forum rather than a strategicforum. It should really be leading agencies,it

should be a strategic directive, you know it shouldn't just be sharing infor7nation

betweenagencies. "

This confusionabout the role of strategicmanagement groups is perhapsindicative of the fact that the arrangementsin Falkirk have generally been loose partnershipcollaborations, with agenciesworking together on long term agreementsabout coordination and planning (see

77 Payne2000), rather than any formal contractualagreements. Confusionand/or the existence of 'different vested interests' are not unique to Falkirk. They have been identified as key points in the successor otherwise of multi-agency working and as a potential barrier to successfulimplementation of policy (Sampsonet al 1988; Pearsonet al. 1992). In England and Wales the Youth JusticeBoard haverecently publishedguidance for YOTs, stressingthe importance of having shared objectives (Youth Justice Board 2004b). While the Scottish

Executive have published similar documents(Scottish Executive 2000; 2002a; 2005a) the findingsfrom this researchquestion the extent to whichthis wasrecognised and implemented at local and strategicoperational level. The confusionand lack of clarity mayhave reflected communicationdifficulties to and from strategicmanagement at either Forth Valley or

Falkirk level (seeChapter Eight), confusedstrategy and the complicatednature of the various partnership arrangementsat different levels of organisations(see appendix 3), different

" Servicelevel agreementsbetween Falkirk Council andthe Health Board (for drug referrals)and Falkirk Council and Sacm(restorative justice) werethe only two service level agremnentsin existenceat the time of the fleld research.

174 interests,various theoretical understandingsabout the aetiology of offending behaviour and responsesto it - or more likely a combinationof all thesefactors.

POLICY AT THE INTERFACE OF THE CHILD AND ADULT SYSTEMS

Confusion regardingyouth justice policy, both nationally and locally, is perhapsmost acute at the interfaceof the Children's Hearingsand Criminal JusticeSystems. While the Executive statementsrefer to 'children and young people' (Scottish Executive2002d: 5), most 16 and 17 year olds areroutinely dealt with in the adult systemand Scotlandhas a higher proportion of young people under the age of 18 years in secure accommodation and custody than comparableEuropean countries (Buist and Whyte 2004; Whyte 2003b). This is despitethe recognition that young people who offend in the 14-18 year agegroup are a particular cause for concernbecause of their place at the transition betweenchild and adult systems,and are the subject of much discussion about how best to addressrelated needs issues (Scottish

Executive2000; 2001a; 2003b; 2003c).

Diversion from prosecution

Diversion as a strategyseeks to reducethe numbersof children and young peopleappearing in court (Goldson 2005b) "to protect themfrom the full rigours of adult justice " (Muncie

2004:268) and should be the main focus of a youthjustice system(Muncie 2002). In Scotland the HearingsSystem represents a diversionary servicefrom the court system for most young people under the age of 16 and some up to the age of 17 (Buist and Whyte 2004). One hundredand twelve young peopleunder the age of 16 had a chargeproved in court in 2003

(Scottish Executive 2005b), while 20,370 decisions were made by a Reporter following

175 referralson offencegrounds (Scottish Children's ReporterAdministration 2005).78 As Whyte

(2003a:75) suggests,"as a record of diversionfrom formal criminal proceedings,this is a remarkableachievement in itself "

Nonetheless,practice has varied regarding the referring of 16 and 17 years old appearing beforethe adult courts to the Children's Hearing for advice or disposal(Kennedy and Mclvor

1992;Hallet and Hazel 1998).In Scotland in 1993 83 young people in this age group were referredto the Children's HearingsSystem from court, and while this figure had risen to 2 10 in 2002 (Scottish Executive 2004b), dropping to 185 in 2003 (Scottish Executive 2005b), whether this increasewas due to more young people appearingin court or more Sheriffs referringto theHearings System is notknown. 79

Young people aged 16-17 years old are one of the specific target groups for diversion from

in Scotland describedby prosecution '80 the Executiveas "the referral of an accusedto social work or other agencieswhen it is believed that formal criminal justice proceedingsare not necessary" (Scottish Executive2004e). Those casesselected for diversion by the Procurator

Fiscal are referred to one of theseagencies and prosecutionis waived if they 'successfully'

81 completea piece of work.

In Falkirk the diversion from prosecutionsystem was co-ordinated through the Procurator

Fiscal,via thecourt socialworker. Following its establishment,Connect worked with a small nwnber of 16 and 17 year olds who were referred by the social worker to the project.

Approximately a year after its establishmentfunding becameavailable, through the Rough

78Reporter decisions cover financial year 2003/04 so are not directlycomparable. 79Scottish court statistics do not providea breakdownof 16and 17 year olds with acharge proved, only 16-20yea olds. 10The other target groups for diversionschemes are accused with mental health or learningdifficulties, drug =0 alcoholissues and women. " Barryand Mclvor (1999) provide a full descriptionof diversionfrom prosecution in Scodand.

176 SleepersInitiative, 82 for Connectto appoint an early interventionworker to work specifically with diversion cases. Diversion cases were not referred through the YJRG as senior managementfelt that direct referral, via the Court social worker, was more appropriate.83

Legal professionalsbelieved that the diversion service(not necessarilyrestricted to 16 and 17 year olds) was important as it representeda saving in court time and providedthe opportunity to give "the individual the type of advice, or treatment which, if it works, will stop the offendingpattern. " Staff at Connectsuggested that:

"Diversion is a good way of ensuring there is a therapeutic social work process /

involvement Diversion doesn't have to keepto the grounds that motivatedthe alleged

offending,you can unearth other issuesthat may benefitfrom a social work input. "

They also saw diversion as "an importantpart, but not a keypart" of Connect,as it was "a step asidefrom the main thrust ofyouth justice, becausewe are not necessarilydealing with them in a youth justice framework. " Connect staff believed the focus of the intervention on diversion was more welfare oriented, rather than involving any offence focussedwork, and mentionedthe prominence of alcohol in a substantialnumber of diversion cases.This was often linked to other adverse social circumstances relating to living conditions and relationships, necessitatinga focus on these issues rather than the offence. Addressing underlying issues, especially alcohol, has previously been identified as an important componentof diversionprogrammes (Barry & McIvor 1999).

'2 A strategyto reducethe incidence of hornlessness. 83in 2003 a total of 67 young peopleaged 16 and 17 were referredto Connectfor the diversionservice (Falkirk Council 2004).

177 This welfare approachwas reflectedin the appointmentof a 'diversion' worker to Connect with a community educationbackground, as diversion caseswere mainly restricted to young peopleassessed as a lower risk of reoffending. As one legal professionalsuggested,

"really persistent offenderswho are committing crime almost every day at that age are probably not suited to diversion."

SomeConnect staff expressedconcern about how well diversionworked at times with one worker suggesting"we've had somefairly serious repeat offenderson diversion." At the other end of the spectrumanother staff membervoiced concernsabout "getting casesthat would otherwise have been no further action on diversion" and the subsequentnet- widening potential of the service(Hughes et al 1998).However, they also offered support for the servicedue to the fact "you're avoiding a young person going into a crueller more brutalising system." Support for the role of Connectwas strong amongstcriminal justice social workerswho believed that it was providing a valuable serviceas "there are a lot of young people that are being offered the opportunity to be divertedfrom prosecution." hi fact, as identified later, the diversion aspect of Connect was seen as its main role by criminal justice social workers.

While Commentsabout the thresholdsappropriate for diversion casesperhaps reflected the overall 'confusing and messy business' of youth justice, generally, diversion from prosecutionwas perceived by mostrespondents as a beneficialpolicy, both nationallyand locally, with most reservation reserved for those young people whose offending was persistent.However, it is worth noting that if the theoretical framework for diversion is to reducethe numbersof young peopleappearing before the court perhapsbeing identified as

6persistent'should not be a bar to inclusion.There was some indication that the nwnberof

178 diversion from prosecutioncases commenced, for 16 and 17 year olds, increasedeach year from 2000/01 to 2003/4. How much this was attributable to the developmentof Connect remains unclearas the statisticsmade available (from ScottishExecutive returns) differed from thoseheld by Connect.

Diversion to the Children's Hearings from Court

A possiblediversionary aim of Connectfor 16 and 17 year olds, when it was established,was to encouragethe use of referral to the Children's Hearing for advice at the time of a Social

Enquiry Report. Wbile this did not strictly meet the criteria of diversion from prosecutionit was anotheraspect of a diversionarymeasure that was available in Falkirk (as it was in the rest of Scotland)to mitigate the effects of the adult systemon the young person.As one, and only one,Connect worker highlighted:

"That's what Connectwas meantto do. Certainly that was what we were to target with

indicators our performance ...that was about trying to encourageand provide supports to socialworkers to keepthese kids in the Children'sHearing. "

It was acknowledgedthat this rarely happenedbecause Connect staff became 'caught up' in othersocial work tasks,an exmnpleprovided being writing reportsfor Children'sHearings.

Instead,some young people aged 16 and 17came to Connectwith a probationorder, either as " a condition of attendance,or a referral from social work staff for extra support.

" Statisticalreturns for the ScottishExecutive, made available for thisthesis, indicated that 6%, of a totalnumber of 225 SocialEnquiry Reportsprepared for the courtson 16 and 17year olds from 2000to 2004,contained recommendations for a referraltD the Children's HearingsSystem These statistics do not provideany indicationof the circumstancesof theyoung people or the natureof their offending, whichmay have affected the decisions of thesocial workers.

179 Diversion from a Children's Hearing

Another potential of the Connect project was that of diversion from a Children's Hearings appearance,that is diversion from formal processing(Goldson 2005b). It was highlighted by a Connectworker that the "Reporter can make a direct referral to Connectand has done so on a few occasions,- althoughthis was followed with the observationthat "they don't seem to makeuse of that. - 85Another Connectworker suggestedthat similar to 16 and 17 year olds being on the diversion from prosecutionscheme for three months, children under 16 years referred to the Reporter could attend Connect for a similar period, rather than attend a hearing, although it was acknowledgedthat would entail a "big changein philosophy of the

Children'SHearing. "

Data available for Falkirk for the year 2000/01 indicatedthat 12% of offence referralsto the

Reporter were referred to a Hearing (Audit Scotland 2002),86 demonstratingthat where possiblediversion from fonnal processingwas occurring. It is not clearwhether the referrals dealt with by other responseswere to other services,no ftulher action, insufficient evidence or measuresalready in place. How these offence referrals were dealt with is an important facet of the HearingsSystem because:

"Doing somethingthat conveysdisapproval of the act but acceptanceand carefor the

actor standsa chanceof making things better.. [because]..aversion to interventionmay

actually encouragefurther offending, byfailing to conveyto the young person that it is

unacceptable,and why' (Smith 2000a:15).

" Ite YJRGdautbase statistics indicate that four referrals to the YJRGwere made by the Reporter'sService and one by thepolice. It is not clearif theSocial Work Liaison Officer also made referrals, which would also constitute diversion ftorn a Hearing. " Nationally10.6% of decisionsfor offencereferrals were to call a Hewing.

180 Therein lies the dilemma for the Hearings System.At what point is it prudent to formally interveneand focus on the offending behaviourof a young person,in addition to the focus on wider welfare needs?The recent secondphase 'Getting it Right' consultationdocument for the Hearings System (Scottish Executive 2005a), highlighted the need for more early intervention servicesto divert young people from a Hearing where possible. However, as discussedfurther in Chapter Seven, diverting young people to 'specialist' youth justice projects may be more problematic if this labels them as 'offenders' without recourse to challengethe basisof a referral.

The Sacro Restorative Justice Project did provide a diversion service from the Children's

Hearings System, receiving referrals from the Reporter when it was considered that restorativejustice would be more appropriate for the young person than a referral to a hearing.87 There was little indication why a young personwould be referred to Sacrorather than the YJRG. It may be that the Sacroservice was preferred becauseit provided a service that 'addressed'the offence by 'allowing' the young personto make amendsfor their actions.

However,despite its reasonablyhigh profile the Sacro,service appeared to be operatingat the periphery of Falkirk's multi-agency responseto youth justice and was not included in the

YJRG. The recent restorativejustice practice document (Scottish Executive 2005c) may changethis emphasis.

The majority of respondentsperceived diversion from formal processing(in its many guises) to be a positive policy aim, usually with a caveatfor the more persistentor seriousoffenders.

The available statisticsfor Falkirk provided mixed evidenceregarding diversionary practices.

" 63referrals were made by the Rq)orterto theSacro scherne fi-om May - December2003 (Falkirk Council 2004a).

181 While most referralsto the Reporter on offence grounds for under 16 year olds were being diverted from formal processingthe majority of 16 and 17 year olds were dealt with in the adult system,similar to the remainderof Scotland.

16 and 17 year olds - responsibility or vulnerability

"You hear it in the Children's Hearings Systemquite a lot. Well they're 16 you know,

no we're not going to continuethe supervision,they needto take responsibilityfor their

actions."

This commentby a Freagarrachworker clearly indicatesthe dilemma facing 16 and 17 year olds in the Scottish justice system as taking responsibility has an implicit meaning to go throughthe Court system.It is alsoa dilemma facing professionalsworking at the interfaceof the Children's Hearingsand Criminal JusticeSystems about how to managethe transition for those young people who continue to offend, and at what age this should occur. There are tremendousprofessional, theoretical, moral and legal pressuresrelating to the approaches taken at this transition point, clearly evident in the commentsfrom a children and families socialworker:

"You're sitting with a6 foot odd laddie at the age of 16 who haspersistently broken

into people's houses,caused them a lot of grief, terrorised them and that. It's really

difficult to say let's take him to a Children's Hearing and let's all sit around a table

You know there'sno easyanswer. "

182 For somerespondents, despite the UN definition of a child being up to the age of 18, the age group was perceived as being particularly distinct from the under 16 year olds. As this

Freagarrachworker noted:

"Working with the 16-18s is very different from working with the younger ones.

They're a very distinct group, and as I say someof that is around involvementwith the

system,the criminaIjustice system...you know up until the age of 16 you havea lot of

things provided for you, whereas a lot of our young people at 16 find that they're

homeless.They're on benefits,they're having to managetheir own money,or having to

managetheir own accommodationand all the kinds of structuresthat they had have all

88 suddenlygone. "

While the 16 and 17 year olds were often perceivedas having theseadditional needs,it was also recognisedthat a paradox existedbecause of the extra responsibilityplaced on them. As this Freagarrachworker noted, there was an expectation that they "are generally setf- managingyoung people, or are meant to be setf-managingyoung people" expectedto deal with these issues themselves because they are perceived as being more mature and responsible. However, even with an expectation of self-managementand taking more personal responsibility, there were some suggestions that 16 and 17 year olds had involvementwith moreagencies. As oneFreagarrach worker indicated they have:

".. thousandsof people involved in their lives. They've maybegot a criminal justice

social worker, Throughcareand Aftercare worker, somebodyfromRighttrach; someone

from here, maybe a drugs worker from somewhereelse, housing oricer. You know

" it wasalso pointed out by criminaljustice social workers that 16-18 year olds had additional needs to theover I 8s.

183 there's loads ofpeople and I think sometimesthe work with 16-18sis acknowledging

for themwell how on earth do you know who I'm supposedto be seeingat what time on

what day,you know life's just oneseries of meetingswith social workery typepeople. "

The need for collaborationat this interfaceposition is vital to meet the needsof the young peopleand to addresstheir offending behaviour acrossboth the child and adult systems.The youth justice projects were providing 'offence focussedprogrammes' (see appendix 8 and page 116) for both under and over 16 year olds, attemptingto place their behaviour in the wider social contexts,but with varying expectationsfrom referrers abouthow much focus a

'programme' should have on offending behaviour,criminogenic needsand consequencesfor non compliance.

With this recognition of legal andconceptual differences for 16 and 17 year olds therewas a divergenceof opinion about whether specific servicesshould be made available to this age group. While some respondentsfelt existing generic servicesneeded to recognisethat some needsare different for under and over 16 year olds, and provide servicesaccordingly, others were clear that projects specifically aimed at the 16 and 17 yearsage group were likely to be more effective andpromote an overall welfare ethosfor the under 18s.

In Falkirk there has been a specialist Throughcareand Aftercare service for young people

leavingcare aged 16 for a numberof years,although this hasnot beenspecifically aimed at

peopleinvolved in offending. The Aftercare team has dealt with many of the issuesfacing a young person after leaving care, not least becausethe young people had left with no other

184 supportafter being removed from supervision.89 A number of respondents,like this children and families social worker, mentionedspecifically the contribution of the teamnoting:

"Some of the excellent work they're doing with kids. I think like you want to involve

I definitely because that...... think you need a specialist service they need so much work. "

The Aftercare Team were working with young people over 16 years of age and providing support for a specific vulnerable group who have been over representedin offending statistics.However, for many respondentsthe servicesthat were available for young people involved in offending behaviour,especially within Connect and Freagarrach,were working well acrossall agegroups, negating the need for agespecific services.The apparentneed for multiple serviceswas linked to the political environment by this criminal justice social worker who thought

"It's always attractive, maybe especially to Politicians, to say well we've got one

agency to deal with drugs and one agencyto deal with 16-17 year olds and so on, you

canget too manyof thesedifferent things together"

There was no generalconsensus expressed on the issueof specific servicesfor young people

at thetransition age of 16 and 17.The Connectand Freagarrach projects working with 12-18

year olds were viewed positively in this respect,which suggestsagain that professionalsin

Falkirk viewed the transition point from the child to adult system as an anomaly. Nationally,

" Thenew legislation for careleavers from April 2004,contained in SupportingYoung People Regulations (2004), should ensure that all youngpeople looked after and accommodated after the schoolleaving age will continueto haveassessment and care plans in placeuntil theyam 19,and in somecases 21 years of age.

185 Youth Court pilots were establishedto addressthe offending issuesof this age group, with additional funding and services provided to work with young people (see Popham et al

2005). 90

The Youth Court pilots were introducedpartly as a responseto the problemsfaced by young people at the interface of the two systemsand appearingin adult courts. If successful,they are likely to be rolled out nationally with clear implications for local practice, and respondentswith knowledgeof the pilots thereforehad strongviews on thesedevelopments.

Amongst the legal professionalsthe Youth Courts were seen as a retrograde step, with widespreadbelief that the proposalscontained in the Criminal Justice(Scotland) Bill 2003, to retain as many 16 and 17 year olds as possible in the Hearings System,should have been acted upon. This proposal was describedby one legal professional as "one of the most enlightenedthings the governmenthas everproposed in a long time, " addingthat it appeared to have fallen away and been lost in a wider punitive agenda for youth crime. A panel memberwith considerableunderstanding of the pilot project expressed"despair at the role of the youth courts." Even amongstrespondents with little knowledge of the pilots, there was concern.As one children andfamilies worker stated:

"I don't knowmuch about the YouthCourts and howthey're getting on butI don't think

it's the way to go. If it comesto thepoint the child is committinga seriousenough

offencethe criminaljustice processhas the wherewithalto take them into the court

anyway.

" It shouldbe noted the interviews for this researchwere completedbefore the initial report of the Hamilton Youth Court pilot (Mcivor et al 2004) waspublished and commentswere based on anecdotalevidence of what Youth Courts constituted.Few social work practitionerswere aware of the pilots and, as notedin ChapterFour, specific questionswere only followed up if it was clear respondentshad knowledgeof the pilots.

186 The thoughtsof theseConnect and criminal justice social workers, who believed the youth court proposals were based more on a political agenda than any evidence of their effectiveness,were not uncommon:

"You know I think youth courts are a reaction to political pressure, and reaction to

getting votes,and this perceivedidea that young people are bad and need to beput in

their place and needto be held accountable."

"Well to someextent it's a bit of a cop outfrom trying to get the children's panels to be

given a little more power and deal with under 18s. It's a better sound bite, I think, to

say that there's a youth court and that deals with thesethings. "

From discussionof various local and national policy initiatives it becameclear that, almost without exception,professionals involved in the delivery of youth justice servicesin Falkirk believed that 16 and 17 year olds should be maintained in the Children's Hearings System wheneverpossible. This actually contradictsprevious Scottish research,which indicatedthat most professionalswere happy with the transition point of 16 for movementinto an adult system(Hallet and Hazel 1998).One explanationfor this discrepancymay be that devolution has led to the questioningby professionalsin Scotlandof a policy that is perceivedas being linked too closelywith that of Englandand Wales.There may also be more confidencein recentdevelopments being ableto deliver 'appropriate'services to youngpeople in this age group without recourseto the adult system. However, in anothergap betweenpolicy, theory and practice, the limited statistics available in Falkirk suggestedthat a professional belief

about the concept of maintaining young people in the Children's Hearings Systemwas not

187 fully supported by actions. Such data, albeit limited, may question the application of theoreticaland conceptual frameworks underpinning individual practice.

Under 16 year olds - vulnerable or responsible

The fundamental precept of the Kilbrandon principles (SHHD 1964) underpinning the

Children's Hearings System was that children in need of care and protection and those involved in offending behaviour had the same needs.The welfare aspectof this approach

suggeststhat the responsibility factor placed on children must be less than that placed on

adults, notwithstanding individual differences (SHHD 1964:60,61) and consequently the welfare needsof children "have to commanda greater priority" (Drakeford 2001:43). These principles are constantlyquestioned in relation to seriousand / or persistentyoung offenders

(Scottish Executive 2000; Stevensonand Brotchie 2004) and were repeatedby a variety of professionalsin Falkirk. Theseconcerns were clearly expressedby a Connectworker:

'7 think there is a real major issueof dealing with young offenderswhen theyget to 15-

16 who have been in the Hearings Systemfor that length of time, they see it as being

toothless.So there has to be that bit about, this is the offencethat you're herefor, we

have to look at that, the reasonswhy you committedthat offence,or why you choseto

commit that offence. That may then take you back into the needs,but I think the way it

isjust nowyour needsare addressed,or your deedsare addressed,but you don't have

accessto both."

Respondentswere not suggestingthat a more punitive approachwas required, rather that

policy makers were still struggling to find the most appropriateresponse for young people

188 who may still have numerousneeds to addressbut are also involved in serious offending behaviour.Another Connectworker verbalisedthis by suggesting:

"I think they should get a specific system that is removedfrom the criminal justice

but Children's Hearings System I do system, also not Part of the .... think we could with

something that has some statutory powers so that if somebody doesn't engage

voluntarily we are given the power to engage,although I think we'd have to look at

how do because We be doing we that, that's the minefield...... needto that so that

we are getting into a therapeutic process that underpins change to examine behaviour,

but you haveto guaranteethat you have accessto that person and maybethe statutory

powers bit comesin if that isn't happening, that ultimately you have recourse to the

adult system."

It was suggestedby another Connect worker that such a "hybrid criminal justice, children andfamilies service" could operateat the interface to addressrepeat offending among young peopletaking:

"77tebest principles of the wetfarist approach, and the best desirable outcomesof the

criminal justice system,and try to mergethem into somethingthat is effectivefor the

communityand is very good at providing good outcomesfor young people involved in

the system."

This idea of a hybrid systemof a welfare andjustice model is not new and resonateswith the

'Third Way' politics of youth justice by transcendingthe welfare and justice models and

taking the 'positive' aspectsof both to create a new youth justice. While these responses

189 perhaps indicated exasperationwith both systems attempting to deal appropriately with young peopleat the interface,a hybrid systemhas beendescribed as 'conceptuallybankrupt, ' adoptingonly theoretical fi-ameworksthat suits its requirementsat any particular time (Pitts

1992).Whether one agrees,or not, aboutthe benefits of a hybrid system,Scottish policy was attempting to adopt this approachwith the introduction of Fast Track Hearings to work specifically with those young peopleidentified as persistentoffenders. Fast Track Hearings, introduced in three areasof Scotland as pilot projects in 2003, containedfeatures of both welfare and justice models. Young people remainedin the HearingsSystem but were fast- tracked into servicesthat dealt directly with their offending behaviour.While this approach was initially favoured by the Executive, Fast Track Hearings are not being expanded nationally (Scottish Executive 2005d) following the publication of an evaluation (Hill et al

2005) which found that their efficacy in reducingoffending was inconclusive.

in Falkirk, despite someconcem about the ability of the HearingsSystem to deal with some

young people,there was considerablepessimism and questioningif Fast Track Hearingswere

the answer.91 They wereperceived as being too offence focussedand representinga departure

from a needsled service.A move towardsspecialist hearings concentrating on young people who offend and / or panel membersreceiving extra training did not receive wide support in the phase one responsesto the Getting it Right consultation(Stevenson and Brotchie 2004) for similar reasons.A commonview held by many of the respondentsin Falkirk was that Fast

Track Hearings could discriminate against young people in need of care and protection. As one children and families social worker asked:

91Interviews were conductedbefom any evaluationof the Fast Thick HeaTingshad beenpublished.

190 " K%yshould a young offenderhave a quicker servicethan a youngperson whose

mum'Sassaulted them, it's hardlyfair.... It's [fast track hearing] working because

they'regetting moneyploughed into it. Ifyou put the moneywhere it's neededthen

thesekids will all get a service."

A panelmember expressed the following concernsabout the FastTrack Hearings:

"It's but hearing be Fast Track Hearing If a clichid phrase really, every should a ... a

child is herefor care and protection there should be the same amount of effort and

what not into recognisingthose difficulties, and things should happenat an early stage.

Whyshould you fast track a kid becauseof offending...everybody should be dealt with

as soon as is humanely possible...[with] every kid there should be the absolute

minimum delay from the problem being identified and somethingstarted to be done

about it. "

The interfaceposition was clearly causingmuch dissonancefor workers in Falkirk who held

a variety of views as to the most effective way of dealing with young peoplein the 14-18year

old age group who continue to offend. The various local opinions reflected the ambiguous

nature of national youth justice provision where the welfare focussed Hearings System

collidedabruptly with the adultjustice system.While local policy wasunlikely to affect the

actualsentencing system, the establishmentof Connectwas an attemptto reconcilesome of

the conceptualissues of providing servicesto young people acrossthe two systerns.

191 THE ROLE OF CONNECT IN LOCAL YOUTH JUSTICE POLICY

The above discussionsabout national and local policy for dealing with young people identified as persistentor seriousoffenders, and /or being 16 and 17 yearsold, relate directly to the role of Connect in local policy. Establishedto complementthe work of Freagarrach, working at that time with under 16 year olds most at risk of losing their liberty, Connectwas perhapsin an ideal position to addresssome of the issueshighlighted in this chapterabout the transition point and dealingwith both welfare needsand offending behaviour.

Despitebeing in this 'ideal' position there was variation amongrespondents as to the specific role of Connect in relation to other services, especially Freagarrach,and in the wider theoretical framework for addressingyouth justice issues.There was, however, substantial agreementamongst Connect staff that the project was at the interfaceof both the Children's

Hearingsand Criminal JusticeSystems. Such understanding was framedby this worker:

"I think we sit astride both and it is quite an uncomfortableplace to sit at times, but I

think that's wherewe do sit. Neitherone or the other... if we're talking aboutdealing

with the underlying issuesthen we can't ignore that for a lot of young people their

family backgroundis a majorfactor that has led themto wherethey are. But equally

we can't ignorethefact that if theycontinue to offendthe adult criminaIjusticeservice

will step in and it will really becomequite punitive. So we have to kind of sit in the

like draw breath middle of that... almost a place whereyou can comeand your and then

decidewhat wayyou want to go... like a timeout."

192 This position of 'sitting astrideboth' systemsin an 'uncomfortableplace' further reiterated the point made earlier about the difficulties of delivering servicesat the interface and in a

'hybrid' system "comprising some combination of weýfare,justice andlor punishment"

(Goldson 2005b:237). Interestingly, criminal justice social workers had a slightly different view, placing more emphasison the diversionaryprospects of both youth justice projects:

"Bridging the hearing children and family service, to keep them out of the criminal

justice system. "

"To stop them becomingadult offenders,stop them having a transition, help prevent it

becominga career or a longer termproblem. "

The commentsof thesecriminal justice workers resonatedwith the conclusionsof Kennedy and McIvor (1992) that the entry of some young people into the adult system could be delayed,if not prevented.

Connect'srole in local policy wasnot clearlyidentified at the outsetand staff alludedto the

fact that at the beginning they were "all a bit unclear about what Connect is trying to achieve." Commentingon the original aimsone memberof Connectsuggested "there was

airyfairy stuff,it wasOK asfar as it went- but anybodyreading it wouldthink whatthe hell is that". Observationof the team developmentmeetings, at which these issueswere

discussed,supported the view that despiteclarity developingover time there remainedsome disagreementabout aims and objectives,how to implement them and what roles were within local policy. These issuesare not uncommon in multi-professional teams (see Burnett and

193 Appleton 2004; Farrell et al 2001), and perhapsmoreso when a strategic decisionhas been madeto allow autonomousdevelopment with no stringentguidelines.

When questionedspecifically about their understandingof the aims (not what they actually were) Connect staff clearly placed their own interpretation on the 'official' wording, providing further evidenceof the professionalinterpretation of policy guidelines(Eadie and

Canton2002).

"To work with young people,for the benefit ofyoung people,placing them at the centre

of theprocess. "

"We work with youngpeople on offendingbehaviour and substanceuse - that's a clear

aim. "

"A specialistservice dealing with offendingissues and substancemisuse. "

"I see Connect's aim as making safer communitiesb Y working with young people and

families to reducethe damageto themselvesand the communitiesby their offending"

These commentsall contain details of the essentialethos of the service, but also reflected slightly different understandingof where the primary focus was. The first clearly views benefits to the young person as the focus of any intervention. The last comment was one of the few to refer to the holistic natureof the project taking into accountthe impact anddamage offending can have on young people and the wider communities.Social work referrerswere

alsounclear about the role of the project,with somebelieving Connect's role to be working

194 specifically on offending behaviour,and othersfor them to be addressingwider issues.This point is returnedto in ChapterSeven in relation to the content of the interventionsprovided by Conncct.

The establishmentof Connect,to complementthe work of Freagarrach,was clearly perceived by professionalsas an attempt by Falkirk Council to bridge the interface of the Children's

Hearings and Criminal Justice Systems,even if only at the point of servicedelivery. Both

Connect and Freagarrachwere attempting to deliver servicesthat combined the positive aspectsof the welfare approachwith the best elementsof offence focussedwork. This was perhapsthe 'hybrid' systemin action at the serviceprovision level, which, if successful,may be a modelworth consideringon a nationalbasis. However, such a systemwould be as much

a challengefor policy makers, as it would be for those who attempt to conceptualiseit in

termsof a specific flieoreticalframework.

CONCLUSION

The views of respondentsabout national and local policy are important becauseit is these

professionalswho will be chargedwith implementation. This chapter has highlighted how

perceptionand understandingof policy, the role of servicesin that policy, and in some

instancestheoretical frameworks, vary betweenindividuals, providing support for the belief

that practiceis likely to be a combinationof policy guidelinesand professional interpretation

of them (Eadie and Canton 2002). The findings question the 'objectivity' of National

Standardsand local written policy (in Falkirk's casethe aims of Connect and Freagarrach)as

a basis for defining youth justice provision and 'standardising' practice in line with a

managerialistagenda. Depending on one's theoreticalperspective the findings are positive for

195 practice in Scotland suggestingretention of professional discretion, or alternatively they highlight the need for more prescriptiveguidelines to standardiseservices.

A commitmentof nearly all the professionalsto place young people's interestsat the centre of the processwas evident in interview responses.Most were clear that any policy shift in

Scotland too far towards a justice / punishment model for youth justice was unlikely to receivewidespread support. Nevertheless, most believed that somedegree of movementwas required to better addressthe 'deeds' of young people identified as seriousor persistentin their offending behaviour. Theseviews reflected the contradictionsthat are faced by youth justice professionalsbetween ýpunishingor helping, controlling or caring'(Eadie andCanton

2002:15), contradictionsthat are probably more pronouncedin a Scottish systemlocated in a welfarefrarnework.

The widespread consensus about the challenges of dealing with young people who persistentlyoffend at the interfaceof the children's and adult systems,and the dissonancethis

causesin professionals,is not one that will be easily solved. Beyond a theoretical 'hybrid'

system (of the Children's Hearings and Criminal Justice Systems) no answers were

forthcoming.Both the Youth Court and Fast Track Hearingpilots were criticised as being too

offence focussedand a retrogradestep for Scotland.The Youth Court especiallywas

identifiedwith the perceivednegativity of theEnglish model. Nonetheless, while therewere

criticismsof thesepilot projects,the tentativedescriptions of the local 'hybrid' systemwere

not radically different from aspectsof both pilot schemes.Most 16 and 17 year olds were being dealt with by the adult system in Falkirk, evenif youth justice projectswere providing

someof the interventions,and under 16 year olds were also being dealt with by 'specialist' youth justice projects. In practice such a 'hybrid' system,even if successfulin Scotland,is

196 likely to representa move away from a welfare approach,but it may be more preferablethan the ftill force of the adult system. Indications from the most recent consultationdocument

(Scottish Executive2005b) suggestthat doing nothing aboutthe Children's HearingsSystem and relatedservices is not an option.

As policy in Scotland develops,and increasedgovernment support is made available for youth justice servicesto "crackdown on yobs or losefunding" (Scotsman2005), it may be increasingly difficult for practitioners to defend the welfare aspects of their work. The contradictions, ambiguities, paradoxes and challenges of working with young people involved in offending were apparentamongst professionals in Falkirk, even in a system where, at the moment for under 16 year olds at least, there are only a limited number of

supervisionoptions available.As 'asbomania'(Bright et al 2005) reachesScotland it is likely

the dissonancecaused between theoretical frameworks and policy and practice guidelines will increaseas more 'sentencing' options becomeavailable. The professionalbasis for work

with young peopleinvolved in offending behaviour is now being challengedin Scotland.The

theoretical and practical debate that has been prominent in England and Wales (Goldson

2000b; Muncie 2004; Omaji 2003; Smith R 2003) should now commencein the Scottish

context, especially as the fundamental principles of the Hearings System may well be

challengedby an increasedfocus and funding for youth justice specific issues.Interestingly,

despitetheir recentaffirmation as remarkableand enlightened(Fraser 1995), the Kilbrandon

principles (SHHD 1964) were rarely mentioned by respondents,an indication perhapsthat

transforniationof Scottishpolicy and theoreticalconceptions is alreadyhighly developed.

Beyond the theoretical and practical implications of policy guidelines, likely to be of more

immediate concern to local strategic managerswere respondents' views on the present

197 strategic arrangements.Across the strategic - practitioner divide there appearedto be a substantialknowledge gap aboutwhat exactly local policy was regardingyouth justice issues.

While Connectand Freagarrach were identified as the major projectsfor the delivery of youth justice servicesconcern was expressedabout the lack of clear guidelinesregarding their role and the responsibility of other agenciesfor service provision, both within the Council and beyond. Whether respondentsdid, or did not, agree with either national or local policy initiatives, the desire for clearer direction and guidelineswas presentalthough, as discussed in Chapter Eight, flexibility of services was also viewed as being important. Increased guidelinesand increased flexibility may be difficult to reconcile.

The next two chaptersexamine the actual delivery of servicesand the impact of the multi- agencyarrangements in Falkirk. The perceptionsof professionalsabout these aspects of local policy were directly related to their understandingof the wider local and national policy. As will be seen, contradiction and ambiguity was a theme of many aspectsof the interview responsesas practitioners and managersstruggled to reconcile the demandsof the Scottish

Executiveand their own professionalfi-ameworks. The identification of sharedobjectives and understandingin a partnership approach may be the greatest struggle given the various interpretationsand understanding of youth justice policy documentedin this chapter.

198 CHAPTERSEVEN

DELIVERY OF SERVICES AND NATURE OF

INTERVENTIONS

This chapter discussesrespondents' perceptions about the delivery of servicesin Falkirk.

Beginningwith an examinationof the referral and assessmentprocess, particularly the Youth

Justice Referral Group, discussion moves on to views about the nature and content of

'programme' delivery and the effectivenessof both Connect and Freagarrachand wider working arrangements. Due to their close inter-agencypartnership, via the Youth Justice

Referral Group, responsesabout both Connect and Freagarrachare included, not least

becauseof the continuity of servicethis partnershipwas designedto ensure.

The findings are examinedin relation to the delivery of servicesto meet the demandsof the

National Standardsfor youth justice and in terms of the introductionof evidence-based,'what works' practice. Effectivenessmeasures are alsoexamined in relation to theory regardingthe

increasinglyrecognised importance of relationshipsin work with youngpeople. The wider implicationsof serviceprovision in relation to the traditionaltheoretical framework of

welfare principlesunderpinning youth justice provisionin Scotlandare also discussedin

recognitionof the oftenpunitive approach attributed to the 'what works' agenda.The chapter

highlights the "competing versionsof reality" (Pettigrew et al 1988:314) experiencedby the

intervieweesin responseto their experiencesand understandingof the systemsin place.

199 REFERRAL AND ASSESSMENT

Sincebecoming operational in September2001, until the endof 2004, Connecthad received just over 400 referrals.92 In the sameperiod Freagarrachhad worked with approximately 120 young people on their full programme.93 The referral processwas the first contact most people had with the youth justice projects and it had been in constantflux and development since their introduction in Falkirk, initially with Freagarrachand latterly with Connect.The changes were precipitated by various funding streams, evolving aims and objectives, hannonisation of the agesof the young people attending at Connect and Freagarrachand simplifying referral criteria (Falkirk Council 2004a).For Connectspecifically, changingteam composition also contributed to changing referral criteria as different professionalshad different views about the role of the project. The introduction of the YJRG was a major transformationof practice regarding referrals and its establishmentwas central to the inter- agencyaspect of the operationalpartnership of Connectand Freagarrach.

Uncertainty about referral criteria had been evident since the establishmentof Connect, particularly in the early dayswhere one worker suggested:

"I think it's ftying to be everythingto everybody-I think there's a real needfor both

Connectand referrersto be clear aboutwhat is providedhere. I think thereis a real

danger with a new service that we can do everythingfor everybody,so therefore they

havea high referral rate and thereforethat wouldjustify the servicebeing there."

91Approximately 80 to 90 casesare estimatedto be open at any one time. Thesefigures will not correspondto the referral figures to the Youth JusticeRefaral Group, mentionedelsewhere, as they cover a different period. " This figure is obtainedfiorn the FreagarrachAnnual Rqx)tU in this period. Number of referrals were not available, althoughas discussed elsewherein regardsto the YJRG most referrals appearto be accepted.

200 Another Connectworker verbalisedthe early bewilderment about criteria by suggestingthe criteria were a:

"Bit foggy by ...evidenced when we get a referral and we're at allocation we end up

speakingabout whether this is an appropriate referraL To me that evidencesthat our

criteria is pretty non-descript,because if the criteria fully reflectedwhat we believewe

do then we wouldn't be sitting there many timesquestioning whether we think this is an

appropriate referraL "

In addition to its own problems with referral criteria, the establishmentof Connect as an additional youth justice project to complement Freagarrachinitially served to increase misunderstanding.Not least with respectto the division of work betweenthe projects and to whom young people shouldbe referred, ashighlighted by this criminal justice social worker:

"It's Connect,it's because have huge In not clear with not clear they such a remit ... fact it usedto be really clear with Freagarrach, but now that Connect's come on the

sceneit's not so clear, becauseyou don't know what the interface is and how they work

know is this together...... and you you phone them up and say a suitable referral and they'll say yey or nay, but you're not clear why it's a suitable referral and why one's

not a suitablereferral. "

One of the fundamentalfactors for effectivemulti-professional teams is clarity aboutroles and responsibilitiesand this lucidity was not evident initially at Connect.This confusion over referralcriteria was in effect a barometerfor otheraspects of their work andresulted in team membersquestioning what type of servicesthey should be providing, their professionalrole

201 and that of colleagues in the team. The issue of referrals would be the benchmark for achieving cohesivenessboth for the team and for refeffers, although in practice the

establishmentof the YJRG reducedConnect's autonomyin this matter.

For Connectstaff especiallythere was concernat the beginning that very few referralswere

refused a service, "we welcome all comers" was a common sentiment.This was a view

supportedby this children and families social worker who suggestedthat "the remit was so

wide, there wasn't a child in Falkirk that Connect services couldn't have worked with".

Another social worker regardedthis flexibility as a positive featureof the project, althoughit

was also acknowledgedthis had changedrecently following the introduction of the YJRG

and the tightening of the referral criteria. The issue of flexibility is returnedto later as it was

seenas a positive aspectof many featuresof the youth justice projects,but also a precursorto

potential net widening.

There was some concern that if children and families workers were having difficulty

engagingwith young peoplethey were referredto Connectif 'any'evidence of substanceuse

or offending behaviour could be found. This potential problem of youth justice servicesbeing

a 'dumping ground' for caseshas been found in previous research(Bumett & Appleton 2004)

and againrelates to issuesof net-widening.Clear referral criteria and thresholdsfor accessing

serviceswere identified as a meansof reducingthe incidence of this, andthe YJRGwas to be

the vehicle for this clarity.

202 Youth Justice Referral Group

The YJRG was establishedto be the central gate keeping point, making decisionson the suitability of referrals to Connect or Freagarrach,or providing advice as to alternative servicesfor young peopleif they did not meet the criteria of theseprojects. The group hoped to reduce the confusion over referral, ease the processfor refeffers and provide a fonun through which to improve the monitoring and evaluation of youth justice services.

Achievementof these changeswas variable, with respondentsholding a variety of views regarding the successof the YJRG at meeting them. Where there was almost unanimous agreementwas that the actualprocess for making a referral improved:

"This is userfriendly, you talk to someonein Connect,who asks the kind of questions

they want to know the answersfor for the referral group. Youfeel you're getting

listenedto and dealt with very quickly."

"It's a very goodprocess they havenow, the referral can be done over thephone which

is brilliant"

However, following the establishmentof the YJRG there still remainedsome confusion about why someyoung peoplewent to Connectand someto Freagarrach:

"I still can't understandwhat the criteria is for referring to one as opposedto the

other "

203 "My concernsat the momentare certainly around the referrals, you know, and I think

that there is like a problem there...... I would to see a clear statement,what is the

differencebetween a referral to Freagarrach Connect,is there difference? 11 and a

A view held by a number of people, notably thoseon the YJRG, negatedthe need for clarity betweenthe two projectswith a belief that refeffers:

"Don't need to be clear about it anymore becausethey only haveto makea referral to

a single point of access to both services, which is the Youth Justice Referral

Group the have ...... as a referrer to services, you only to pick the phone up and

someoneelse will makea decisionabout what's the most appropriate service."

However therewas a caveatto this statement:

"I guessthat could raise somedifficulty as well becausepeople canfeel disempowered

by that potentially you know, they haven't got the right to choosea servicebecause we

do it on their behaý,and maybethat will be a causefor annoyance."

This concernabout disempowerinent touches on issuesregarding the deprofessionalisationof workers due to the increasein written, prescriptive guidelines(Pitts 2003) and a lowering of discretion for decision making while increasing accountability (Eadie and Canton 2002;

Canton and Eadie 2005). Standardisationof servicesis a featureof managerialism(Tsui and

Cheung2004) and in Falkirk it manifesteditself in this instancein the dissonancebetween wanting easier accessto services through the YJRG and the desire to retain professional decisionmaking and discretionabout who, and when, to refer. Within Connectissues

70A remained over the cases they were allocated which, as mentioned above, following the introductionof the YJRG they had lessinfluence over:

"People still aren't clear ...... Now I don't know whether that's a referral group

issue,or whether it's a Connectissue, or whether itfalls somewherebetween Connect

and Freagarrach and thoseon the referral group. "

Otherteam membersconsidered the criteria to be "a bit clearer " and "largely appropriate with a few exceptions" following the introduction of the YJRG. However, even with some consensusabout the criteria therewere worries about:

"A down look continual pressure to go tariff all the time... to at Youngpeople where there's very little offendingor very little substancemisuse, you know, and drawing the

line is quite difficult to do with thoseyoungpeople. "

44..a lot of the times there's more emphasisput on the offending behaviour than

actually's kind ofgoing on, so it's as if it makesthem fit the referral criteria. "

".. looking at what constitutes 'normal' behaviourfor a 14 year old in relation to

offending behaviour and substancemisuse. I'll guessthat we should not be providing

level belowit. But I specialistservices to anybodywho's at that or .... think there'sa political pressure to interveneearlier all the time, and with the result that you end up

batch Suddenly know, they've been criminalising a whole of young people...... you brought into the youth justice systemand subject to assessmentusing specialisedtools

205 and having contact with social workers, and I'm not so certain that's a good thing in

all cases."

If pressureto down tariff and to put more emphasison offending behaviour was a regular occurrence,the referrals may not have been 'largely appropriate.' The YJRG and the youth justice projects may have been colluding with refeffers to widen the net for young people involved on the peripheryof offending behaviour,instead of promoting early interventionby other more appropriateservices before referral to 'specialist' projects. Theseissues reflected those of many commentatorsabout contemporaryyouth justice who expressconcern about the net widening potential of YOTs in England and Wales (see Muncie 2004; Goldson

2005a).

The 'political pressure' to interveneearlier is evident in governmentdocuments (see Scottish

Executive 2000; 2002d) with their emphasison early intervention and preventativeservices, althoughit is often not clear if early interventionrefers to work to addresspre-offending risk factors (see Chapter Two) or early intervention in a young person's offending career.

Concernabout projectsand servicesthat provide formal offence focussedprogrammes at too early a point not only relates to net widening but is supportedby the 'what works' research highlighting the negative impact this may have on young people regarding their fidure

offendingbehaviour (Andrews et al 1990).

Prescriptive thresholds for referral to the YJRG

A prescriptive referral threshold to the YJRG was mentionedas a possiblesolution to these

issues.This Connectworker suggestedthat:

206 "It's not the referral criteria, but it's the issueof the thresholdat the lower end of the The bit down lower bottom market...... needfor a of clarity at the end, the end of the

scale, the sort ofpreventative element,prevention type caseswhere there is low risk.

There are questionswhether we should actually deal with it, ie a specialist service

should deal with that end of the market, but on the other hand we havepeople whose

, 94 jobs are related to that.

Referral criteria were, by definition, wide at the entry level to Connect and where referrers

"draw the line" affected the type of referrals to the YJRG. There was also concem from

Connectstaff that the YJRG imposeda moving thresholdwhen deciding if behaviourwas the main concern. It is worth noting that in practice Freagarrachwas largely immune to the concernabout early thresholdsdue to the fact their criteria remainedat a level of persistence where referralswere more likely to have a patternof offending. However, this was beginning to changebecause some young people were being referred to Freagarrachwhere there were concernsabout a high level of harm, evenif the persistencethreshold had not been reached.

Unfortunately, even with the present risk assessmenttools, assessmentof harm remains difficult to assess (McNeill and Batchelor 2004), and the youth justice projects were strugglingwith this aspectof the service.

Theseconcerns touch on a key issuein work with young peoplewho offend, namely at what level of offending behaviour do 'specialist' offender services become involved? As one children and families social worker succinctly asked "when do you decide a child is youth justice and when do you decidethat they're wetfare?" The question also relatesto that asked

This is different to the diversion caseswhich come direct from the ProcuratorFiscal, do not go through the YJRG and are subject to different criteria.

207 in Chapter Six about where youth justice sits in relation to children's servicesand criminal justice services.In Falkirk there were no guidelinesto suggestwhen a young person should be referred,that is, no directive instructing staff to refer at a certain level of concern.It was clear from interviews that referrers from children and family and criminal justice teams in

Falkirk imposedtheir own threshold,a thresholdthat could be determinedby different factors that did not always involve offending concerns:

"Very often it's a time thing, if we don't havethe time to do a particular piece of work"

'7 think it has to be kind of the severeend, a lot of the kids we deal with commit minor

We Connect intervention deal offences...... see asproviding a more structured to with a pattern of behaviour, which is offending behaviour, so I think if you don't have the

pattern I think we wouldn't refer. If we see a pattern emergingI think we would start

referring to Connect"

"Ifyou've got a young person not attendingschool but there are drug or alcohol issues

in the family, then probably really fight away the minute that young person's not

attending schooL You get wind that they're in weebits of bother, even beforeyou get

the JRFflying in from the police, you get wind of thefact that they're dabbling in a bit

of kind ofpetty crime,and maybesmoking a bit of hashand doing all of that, and at

that stageId probably refer them" 95

"That's a difficult one, I think that in relation to offendingthe commissionor having a

charge against you is enough. So you'll be described as being involved in

95JRF- Juvenile Record Form - referralsfrom the police that are sent to the Reporterand the Social Work Departrnentregarding concems about young people.

208 offending...Some people are involved in offending and not picking up charges,and I

supposethat's somethingthat we haven't fully thrashed out, trying to think about it.

That's a difficult onefor arrangements."

Each of these views about thresholdswas likely to meet existing referral criteria, but the question is whether they constituted appropriate referrals. If these responses were representativeof the generalreferral pattern throughout Falkirk therewas inconsistencyin the referrals, at least from social work teams. There was some indication that wide referral criteria and flexibility may have encouragedinappropriate referrals and widened the net of youth justice. The YJRG appearedto act as a magnetat times attractingreferrals when there were concernsabout offending behaviour. Somesocial workers referredyoung peoplewhen their caseloadswere busy, or when they did not have the time to do offence focussedwork.

Additionally, as one respondentpessimistically indicated, flexibility merely ensureda high number of referralsto the new project. Lack of resourcesin the social work teamswas also a major factor in thesereferral patterns,not helped by the perceptionof increasedfunding for youth justice projects (discussedftu-ther in Chapter Eight). With the impetus for an initial referral to the YJRG at the discretion of a refeffer based on 'concerns' about offending behaviour, some young people may have received an appropriate service, some who may have requiredit may not have receivedit, and somereceiving it should not, perhaps,be in a

'specialist'project. Continued monitoring is requiredto ensurethat flexibility doesnot equate to inconsistency,net widening and / or slippingthrough the net.

The issueof thresholdsand consistencyis an important one if servicesare to be targetedat a certain population of young people, as there needsto be a systematicapproach to referring young peopleto programmesand/or specialist projects (Burnett 2004).Without this therewill

209 be a 'postcode lottery' for referral dependinghow the referrer (generally a social worker)

interpretsthe referral criteria or thresholds.These inconsistencies, reflected in the observation

by a YJRG memberthat "... there are someteams who refer to that team [YJRG] a lot more

than other teams". were supportedby information from the YJRG databasewhich indicateda

substantialdifference in referralsbetween the various children families social work teams

acrossFalkirk, from a high of 29 to a low of 3 referrals.96 It is, however, important to ensure that consistencydoes not equateto treating all young people the saine (Canton and Eadie

2005).

Inconsistencyin referral decisionswas not limited to referrals to the YJRG. As mentioned

above,respondents also spokeof a 'moving'and flexible' thresholdwithin the YJRG. Social

workers indicated that they made referrals subsequentlyto be informed by the YJRG the

young person did not meet the criteria becauseof "this businessabout thresholdsand he's

not as bad as we think he is. " This raises questions,not only about the thresholds for

referral, but also about the assessmentof risk of offending by children and families social

workers. As discussedbelow, a common assessmenttool providing a similar frame of

referencewas not in useacross the social work teaxnsand youthjustice projects.

initial informationfrom the YJRG databaseprovides a useful context for this discussion

aboutthresholds as the statisticsgive someindication of the levels of risk of reoffending

identified in thoseyoung people refeffed to Connectand Freagarrach.Table 2 details the

level of risk identified through an Asset assessmenton the young peoplereferred between I

September2003 to 31 December2004.97

" Ilis may be due to the differencein numbersthat eachteam works with and for an accurateindication of thesefigures numbersof young teople being supervisedfor offending behaviourat the various social work centreswas needed, but wasnot available. Of the 178 young peoplereferred during this period 20 were identified by the YJRG as not being suitablefor referral to either Connector Freagarrach,18 were non offending referrals. Of the remainder(140) an Asset assessmenthad been completed for 89, the figure that the patentages in the table are basedon.

210 Risk level % of young people

Low 5

Low-medium 16

Medium 21

Medium-high 30

High 28

i abiez- nsKot reottenctingot youngpeople refeffed to the YJR(j

While risk of reoffending was not a threshold for referral to the YJRG, this information provides some indication of the identified risk of the young people referred. A risk assessmentprior to referral may have promoted consistency(Canton and Eadie 2005) and reducednet widening by reducinginappropriate referral (though it may also have introduced young people into formal assessmentsunnecessarily (Muncie 2004)). If, for example, a medium-high level of risk was the minimum thresholdfor accessingthe projectsnearly half of the referralswould not havebeen madeor would have beenrejected by the group ensuring

98 non justice interventions. Alternatively, the young people may not have received any service, welfare or offence focussed,which raisesthe conceptualconundnun of accessing welfare servicesthrough a justice pathway (Drakeford 2001).

Whiledata was not availableto indicatethe number of episodesof offendingbehaviour of the youngpeople for thecomparable timefiwne, data from the secondevaluation of theYJRG (I

April 2004 to 31 October 2004 - Falkirk Council 2005) did provide this infonnation. Of the twenty-nine young people allocated to Connect for offending behaviour, eleven had one episodeof offending, eight two episodes,five three episodes,four had four episodesand one

I Las thanhalf of youngpeople identified as being below a medium-highlevel of risk areTeconvicted (Baker et &12002).

211 had five episodes.Of the fifteen young people referred to Freagarrachall had five or more episodes of offending with four having ten or more episodes. Clearly in relation to

Freagarrach'scriteria all the young people were appropriatereferrals to that project. With regardsto Connect,in the absenceof a lower thresholdfor referral to the YJRG, the referrals are technically all appropriate.One may question whether the ten young people with one charge(as opposedto episodes)should be referredto a 'specialist' youthjustice project.99

Overall there were diverse perceptionsof the referral criteria and thresholdsthat probably reflecteddiverse beliefs and understandingabout what constitutesa 'youth justice' serviceor

'youth offending.' Theseperceptions were also likely to be associatedwith views expressed in ChapterSix aboutnational and local policy for youth justice. While ChapterSix identified a broadly welfare philosophy evident in Falkirk the discussion of referral criteria and thresholdsalso reflectedthe potential net widening capabilitiesof a 'welfare' systemwithout guidelinesfor accessing'specialist' youthjustice services.However, despitethese conceptual andtheoretical issues, this Connectworker capturedthe generalperceptions about the referral processto Connectand Freagarrach:

"I think we havea basicsystem of making a referral that is actually pretty good, in that

there are two agenciescombining into one, with a quasi independentreferral group to

co-ordinate,to divvy up the work betweenthem ".

Added to this positive assessmentof the processwas the proviso that:

" Furtheranalysis of theYJRG database indicated that of theeleven young people with one'episode', ten of theserelated to oneoffence.

212 "The in00 rmation that people base their referrals on needs to be accurate. And it

doesn't appear to be in all the places that we could theoreticallyoffer that serviceto "

The information to basereferrals on relatesboth to the questionof accurateassessment which is discussednext, and the issue of communication about the exact nature of the services offered by the projectswhich is discussedin Chapter Eight. Both of thesefactors are crucial to the delivery of appropriateservices where service users can be confident that the youth justice projectsare delivering what is requiredto the appropriateyoung people.

Assessment

Theevidence-based 'what works' agendaand effective practice initiatives are clearabout the importanceof a structuredassessment to channeloffenders into appropriateservices, so that their needsand risk can be matchedto the correct level of service(McGuire 1995;Chapman

& Hough 1998). The National Standards for Youth Justice (Scottish Executive 2002a) recognisethis need for accurateassessment and begin to establishguidelines for improved assessmentof young people'srisk and needsin the youth justice systemin Scotland(Scottish

Executive 2000; Audit Scotland 2002). In recognition of this, and as part of the wider national and local policy, Connect and Freagarrachhave clearly stated that their service is predicated on evidence-basedinterventions with young people (Barnardo's 2004; Falkirk

Council 2004a).

Since becoming operational Connect and Freagarrach have sought to apply structured assessmentsto their services.Initially the two projectsemployed different tools to thoseused by thecriminal justice socialwork team,and thechildren and familiesteams were not using

213 any structuredassessment tools at all. As national policy developed,with the directive from the ScottishExecutive that all young peoplereferred to a Hearingfor offending shouldhave a structured assessmentcompleted, namely Asset or YLS (Scottish Executive 2002a), assessmentpractice in the Forth Valley and Falkirk also developed. Initially Connect employedthe YLS tool from the Cognitive Foundation,based on the adult LSI-R tool which is employedby a number of criminal justice teams acrossScotland. Connect embarkedon a series of training events for staff, so that all professionsin the team could undertakerisk assessments.Freagarrach preferred the Asset assessmenttool developedby a team at Oxford

University. Interestingly,as the Connectpersonnel changed the project tool of choice became

Asset.

in time a decision was made at the Forth Valley Youth Justice Strategy group that the common tool across the Forth Valley was to be Asset and a timetable for training the appropriate staff was established.Both Connect and Freagarrachwere instrumental in this decision being made. Staff from these projects were initially the only professionals undertakingoffence focussedrisk assessmentson children under the ageof 16 and they were able to feedback their experiencesto the strategy group. Subsequently,staff in all Forth

Valley youth justice projects were trained in the use of Asset and in Falkirk a number of childrenand families social workers were similarly trained.100 Connect staff became involved in delivering training following their accreditation as trainers by Oxford University. The criminaljustice team continued to usethe Scottish Executive RAI -4 assessmentfi-amework.

The acceptanceof Asset was widespreadamongst the interviewees,with little disagreement

to its use. All those interviewed with experience of using YLS and Asset expresseda

10*ongoing training is a"ting to trainall childrenand families staff in theuse of Assetto deliverthe proposed new model (see Chapter Four).

214 preference for Asset for a variety of reasonsincluding its inclusivity and comprehensive nature.101 The use of the tool for identifying wider welfare needs,rather than criminogenic needswhich is what it is designedfor (Baker 2004), was a major discussionpoint in Falkirk.

Children andfamilies workersespecially expressed their desirefor a broaderassessment:

"I I being mean think it's seenas an assessmentof risk of reoffending...... we'd much be holistic So looking for prefer it to a much more assessment..... what we are is a holistic assessment,not a purely risk of offendingassessment. "

This reflects previous reflections about the use of such assessmenttools in youth justice wherethere can be tensionabout whether risk or needis being, or shouldbe, measured

(Kemshall 2005),and concernsabout a focus on criminogenicneeds to the detrimentof wider socialneeds (Pitts 2003).

Therewas also widespreadcomment among referrersregarding the point at which the Asset assessmentwas completed in the referral process.Interview responsesand observationat training eventssuggested that it was completedat various points both prior to and following referral to the YJRG, with some respondentsindicating it was completedmore than once.

However,there was someconsensus that Assetwas being compIetedafter a decisionhad been madeby the YJRG that Connector Freagarrachwas the most appropriateservice for a

youngperson. Many respondents, from both socialwork teamsand the projects, believed that

the appropriatenessof the referrals and the referral procedureitself could be improved if the refeffer (usually a social worker) could undertakea 'mini Asset' 102prior to referral:

"'Questions werenot designedto elicit views on reliability and validity; they were inot concernedabout people's perceptionsof its use. 11 Mini Assetis a shorter version of the coreprofile and is often referredto as the final warning Asset(Baker 2004).

215 by do that "IfAsset is usedearlier the area team workers...... they would actually piece of work which would stop itfrom going there [YJRG], which would then meanthat you

know the referrals they get in theoryshould be more appropriate referrals. "

An issuenot mentionedspecifically by interviewees,but one that may addressconcerns about appropriatereferrals andthresholds, was the use of Assetratings as a meansof establishinga thresholdbelow which referral cannotbe made(see also page 211). Baker et al (2002) found that ratingson Assetwere the most disliked aspectof its use andstaff in Falkirk werewary of using these. Most referrers and project staff, even if unhappywith the threshold problem, seemedto prefer a certain amount of flexibility in the system and regarded a 'score' as restrictingthis flexibility.

In most casesAsset and risk of reoffending ratings were not routinely used at the initial decisionmaking processby the YJRG regarding suitability for the projects. This raised some concerns,among Connect and Freagarrachstaff especially, regarding how decisions were reachedand againrelates to thresholds.As this Connectworker explained:

"You get a list of charges or offencesftom the police, and it's not clear if they are

actually charges or offences,or what happened,is it grounds of referral, or actually

it's beencases that have been to a Children's Hearing and accepted,or indeedby the

court.So it's aboutwhat the status of thesecomplaints are. "

There was somesuggestion that the YJRG was making decisions,in somecases, on the basis of alleged offences or concerns about offending behaviour that may not even go to a

Children's Hearing. These have been describedas 'offence records' by Garland (1996:450)

216 that have not been subjectto any legal proof and may be an exampleof 'executive justice'

(Blagg and Smith 1989), where decisionsare made that do not have recourseto challenge.

Such 'flexible' practice has potential human rights implications for theseyoung peoplewho may be subject to formal assessmentsand youth justice interventions without any independentadjudication. An argumentcould be made in this respectfor all referralsto the

YJRG to come from a Children's Hearing to at least ensure 'evidence' of offending behaviour,with other 'offence' referralsbeing dealt with less formally by being directed to other services.

As discussedabove, an Asset assessmentwas not generally completeduntil after a referral to one of the youth justice projects. Thereforeassessment of the risk of reoffending, one of the main usesfor the tool (Baker et al 2002; Baker 2004),was not employedas part of the initial referral process.It was not the risk presentedby the young personthat triggered a referral to the YJRG, but the fact they may have committed an alleged offence. As describedby this

Connectworker, Assetwas more routinely usedto decide:

" Hat do we do with this young person. It's a type of interventionplanner basically,

and also risk of offending, which will dictate to somedegree the intensityof contact we

would have with the young person. So it's about how far do you intervene with this

youngperson based on theAsset score, and howmuch work doyou needto do to avoid

further offending behaviour.That's what it tells you really. "

Once engagedwith the service,it was unlikely that after the assessmentperiod (4-6 weeks) a young personwould be refusedfiniher contactfollowing the resultsof the Asset.Staff at both

Connectand Freagarrachsuggested that they preferred to offer some support,independent of

217 the outcome of the Asset assessment.One Connect staff member saw it as "kind of be it abusive... to seeingsomeone and then saying not suitable". This may be so, but may also be abusiveto have a young personin a youth justice project who hasbeen involved in one or two minor incidences of offending behaviour, but who presents little or no risk of reoffending. The early interventionprinciple was cited as a crucial factor in these decisions

so that offending could be nipped in the bud (Williamson 2005). An Assetassessment prior to

a referral, with a higher threshold in place at the YJRG, may have mitigated against

inappropriatecontinuation of service. It is also debateablewhether early intervention in a

justice projectconcurs with a welfare principle.

One of the major reasonsthat Asset was the preferred choice of assessmenttool in Falkirk

was its ability to engagethe young person in the whole processand begin the building of a

working relationship. To this end the 'What do you think' component,a self-assessment

forTn,was seenas being vital. Staff at Freagarrachsuggested "it's not just assessment,it ,s

assessmentand engagementfor us, the two go alongside." At Connectthe prefeffed method

of administering the tool was on a laptop which many staff felt ftulher engagedthe young

person and allowed them to be involved immediately in the assessmentprocess. Staff

preferred this methodof working becausethey felt it placedthe young person at the centreof

the process,and allowed the worker to work with the young person,as opposedto on them.

To a similar end Connect staff were just beginning to use the Rickter assessment(see

www.rickter. com) which is designedto allow the young peopleto define what they seeas the

major issuesin their life. This was being employedas a tool to begin the engagementprocess

with the young peopleas it doesnot focus on criminogenicneeds, although there are overlaps

in the areas covered. This focus on establishing relationship and the use of pro social

218 modelling is an important aspectof achieving successfuloutcomes (Trotter 1999;McNeill at al 2005), but forming relationshipsshould not be at the risk of placing young people in an inappropriate service merely becausethey have completed an assessmentprocess and a connectionhas been established.

What was clear from various descriptionsof the referral and assessmentprocess was that young people had the potential to be assesseda number of times before they reachedthe appropriateservice. As mentionedearlier, the use of different assessmenttools in the social work criminal justice team and the youth justice projects, may have contributed to the number of assessments.In relation to this one criminal justice social worker suggested:

"We get confiised,or the offendergets confused,because there's an assessmentforone

purpose, and then there's an assessmentforanother purpose, and they think it's allfor

the samepurpose, and it's not the samepurpose. So it would be interesting to know

what their assessmentwas for, was it to target interventions,was it to identify risk, or

was itfor someother purpose. "

A children and families worker expressedsimilar views:

"So I assessthem, I contact Connect,they take a referral and it goes to thepanel, and

I it lot it be interesting all thesepeople, which mean... costsa of money, will to cost that panel. Theysit there, all managers,and they sit on this panel and assessmy assessment

that I've contactedConnect, and then decide,you know, what I decidedin thefirst because based So I do place my assessmentis correct and on good practice......

219 Asset,decide where I'm going to refer it, they look at that and refer and it's doneagain.

It needsto be sorted,definitively needsto be sorted "

Despite the widespreadacceptance of Asset therewas a need for clarity aboutwhen and why the assessmentwas completed to avoid the situation, as one Connect worker suggested, where "there is a real danger that we want to assesseverything to death", with no clear understandingwhy. In these circumstancesthe concerns expressedby Muncie (2004:278) may be particularly pertinent:

"Identification of those 'at risk' has simply contributed to a criminalisation ofyounger

and relatively minor offendersagainst which previously no formal action might have

beentaken. "

As mentionedabove, while the use of Asset before a referral to the YJRG could negatethe possibility of inappropriate referrals its use may be beginning formal action. Accurate assessmentis a complex task that has the potential to identify appropriateservices for young people, or catapult them into youth justice projects where the actual levels of risk do not waffant such intervention. However, accurateassessments, followed by appropriateservices

(within or outwith youth justice), are most likely to lead to successfuloutcomes for young people(McNeill and Batchelor 2004). A decisionto use Asset shouldnot be taken lightly. It remains to be seen how the Scottish Executive (2005c) commitment to having one assessmentfor accessingall servicesis implementedin practice.

220 STRUCTURED INTERVENTION OR 'PROGRAMMES' - THE CONTENT OF SERVICES

As discussedabove, following a referral from the YJRG the projectworkers completedAsset to attempt to match assessedrisk and need to a variety of one to one and groupwork interventions.Both projectsdetailed in their annualreports the individualised, flexible nature of the programmesthat constitutedtheir interventions,using a rangeof material from various sources. This flexibility was seen as vital in allowing them to develop individual and groupworkmodules (Falkirk Council 2004b).

In youth justice and adult offender work the meaning of a 'programme' is often difficult to elucidate,as many interventionsare now describedas such. For the fieldwork the definition was not clarified with the intervieweesto allow flexibility in their responses.There is little clarity in the Scottish youth justice context regardingthe constitution of a 'programme', and it may be that recognition of the benefits of an individualised 'programme' precludes a prescriptivedefinition. With this in mind the working definition adoptedfor this thesisis that 103 describedby McGuire (2002:27) as 'a stnictured sequenceforlearning and change.'

The annualreports of Connectand Freagarrachprovided basic information about the nature of their interventions,indicating they were based on individualised'programmes. ' There was someconsensus, from intervieweesacross the professional spectrum, that both Connectand

Freagarrachwere providing a variety of structured interventions to young people as an additional input to the statutory interventions. However, responsesalso highlighted the

11 Ibe Scottish ExecutiveCommunity Justice AccreditationPanel has a much stricter definition of a progranune,although this has not been adoptedfor youthjustice (seeappendix 8).

221 absenceof a clear understandingof what these 'programmes' actually contained. The following examplesgive an indication of this:

"I do think it's it's like lad, is sometimes not clear what...... whenyou meet that what it

exactly that you do. You can rarely pin them down on that one, what exactly are you

doing with them,you know it's really difficult, 'we're doing alcohol and drugs,'yes I

know but how are you doing that with them,what are you. Youknow they'rejust doing

the same as what I do... They're needing to be a bit clearer on what they mean by

programmes.

"I'm not clear what services Connect are putting on.....it seemsfairly amorphous,

there doesn't seemto be any clear plan about what is going on. "

"I think times it's know kind the basics, but at not clear ...you of maybe not the details."

"As I understandit, it is individual work, but I believethat they haverun programmes

before, I don't know whether they're doing programmes now, or whether that's an

intention.But as I understoodit it is individual work, kind of an almost,like an

individualcareplan kind of ideafor eachclient. "

Some social workers believed that the interventions provided by staff at Connect and

Freagarrachshould havebeen additional to the supportavailable from social work teams,not instead of Providing 'programmes' that differed from social work provision was the

understandingof this social worker who believed that the youthjustice projectswere there:

222 "To do a specificpiece of work on the offending behaviour,assessment and that, and

they're not really there to do anything else.... I wouldn't look at them doing anything

morethan that. "

However other social workers had an opposite view about the youth justice projects highlightedby this childrenand families socialworker:

"I don't think it's much differencefrom what I do mysetf,and I think that's the problem I have differenceis I have " with it all as well...... the only think that they thetime.

There were varying views from refeffers,about the type of servicethat the projects should deliver. It is probable that, at the time of the interviews, time constraintsand resourceissues were influencing theseviews. The natureof the servicebeing provided may havenot been the important issue, it may have been that the projects had the availableresources to work with the young person.

The subject of 'programme' content was a contentious matter in Connect. There was a recognition that programme development was not quite as advanced as perceived by referrers.When askedwhether the project was delivering what it purportedto, one memberof staff explained:

"We talk about programme work but I don't think we haveprogramme work -I think

what we haveis individuals who will practice in a way that they want to practice

we're not clear about we're going to use Targetsfor Effective Changeand that will

223 underpin cognitive behaviouralstuff, social learning stuff we do. I don't think it's as

clear or as explicit as that. "

While the definition of a 'programme' is open to interpretation,the fact that somemembers of staff at Connect did not believe that they provided 'programmes' perhaps indicated a misunderstandingabout servicedelivery betweenthe referrersand staff at the project. This misunderstandingabout what constitutesa 'programme' or structuredintervention may have been linked to poor communicationabout the services,or it may also have been a result of what respondentsbelieved constituted a 'programme.' As Raynor (2004) has highlighted

'programmes' appearedto be identified by somerespondents with groupwork, as evidenced by this commentfrom a Connectworker:

far become "We're working more towards programmes... we will a programme

oriented team, [although the] reality at the momentis the majority of our work is done

individually with people."

Moving towards a 'programme' based approach at Connect was facilitated by the appointment of a programme developmentofficer. To this end a 'programme menu' was publishedin late 2004 detailing referral proceduresand the servicesthat Connectprovided in relation to both group and individual 'programmes' (see appendix 8). The team also began work at the beginning of 2005 on a document for each'programme' for referrers, and other interestedparties, detailing exactly what eachsession would involve.

Within Freagarrach,staff were clearer aboutthe 'programme' they provided, evenif referrers werenot:

224 "I supposethe key thing is that it is an individual programmefor the young person, so

for eachperson it's going to be different. As a kind ofgeneral averageof the six areas

that we cover, offendingbehaviour and victim awarenessare the two keysones and the

reason they've been referred is on offencegrounds. So the key things to look at are

offendingand consequencesboth for themselvesand otherpeople. "

A holistic focus on offending behaviourand criminogenic needat Freagarrachsuggested that their interventionswent far beyondoffence focussedwork, focussingon the family andsocial context:

I think traditionally we've beengood at challenging,the sort of areas of our work, you

know, we've got a holistic sort of package, where areas of work, you know we're

challenging offending behaviour, victim awareness,working with families, iffamilies

are involved,particularly with under 16s. Looking at supporting schoolplacements, or

gettingpeople involvedin somesort of employmenttraining or work. Leisure activities,

we'vebeen involved with that as well, constructiveuse of leisure as we call it. And also

health ofyoung people, physical and mental health as well. So,traditionally I suppose

we'vebeen a kind ofacross the board a holistic thing.... As I say I supposeit's a kind of

broad approachto their offendingbehaviour. "

Theseissues go to the heart of partnershipworking, casemanagement, the need for holistic interventionswith young peopleand the level of input requiredfor those identified as persistentoffenders. Holistic serviceshave been found to bebeneficial for both youngpeople and adults identified as persistent offenders (Worrall and Mawby 2004) and Freagarrach

225 clearly provided a 'holistic' service,104 while Connect also had the professionalcapability to do so, and often did. However, there was a tension in the thoughts of project staff and partnersabout offence focussed work andholistic services.While it was generallyagreed that work that failed to take accountof the wider family, social and economic context would

"inevitably fail" (Asquith and Docherty 1999:245) there was confiision and disagreement

about whether one project could, or should, be holistic. As discussedin Chapter Three the

'what works' researchdoes not imply that any one project or programmeshould provide all aspectsof a multi-modal approachand multi-agency arrangementsimplicitly imply diffusion of responsibility. Fundamentalto young people is the point that welfare servicesshould not be primarily accessedthrough justice routes (Drakeford 2001). Effective assessmentof risk and case managementshould ensure that a young person receives appropriate support, through the appropriateservice, without duplication. The challengeis how to incorporatea rangeof servicesacross partner agencies that avoids repetition,meets all the needsof a young personand addressesproblematic offending behaviour.

The 'holistic' and 'individualised' nature of the interventionsprovided by the projects may haveled to the lack of understandingand/or knowledge aboutthe servicesthat were actually provided and about what constituteda 'programme.' In many instancescase managers may have been referring young people to prejects,whilst being unclear about the content and nature of the 'programmes'. Without this knowledge it would have been difficult for case managersto reinforce the work being undertaken,a key aspectrelating to the successof interventions(Partridge 2004),or to ensureappropriate services were being provided.

'04 Theseare detailed in ChapterFour and Lobley at al (2001)provide a full descriptionof theseholistic services.

226 This confusion amongstreferrers about what is actually provided andthe differencesbetween the projects led to a questioning of the need for two serviceswhich in many caseswere perceivedto be providing a similar service.As onechildren and families social worker stated:

"Well, I think there's a lot of confusionaround, betweenwhat Freagarrach offer and

what Connectoffer, and I think actually it'S probably an amazing luxury to have two

facilities, doing what appearsto us to be roughly the same thing. Now I know they've

got togetherin terms of having a similar referral process, and that makessense, but I

think it would make even more senseto seriously review whether or not you need to

havetwo separatefacilitiesfor the size ofFalkirk. "

Perhapsmost surprising was that neither staff at Freagarrach,nor Connect,had any clear understandingabout the servicesprovided by the other. Such confusion within the projects, and from referrers,could strengthenthe argumentsfor the merging of the projects,especially if professionalsperceived them as providing similar interventions,or providing a servicethat would be no different to that provided by social work teams.Comments such as "You know they're doing the sameas I do " and "I don't know what's going on " indicated the need for either a more focussedservice and / or a better communicationof the servicebeing delivered.

Theseissues also directly relate to the points made earlier about accurateassessment so that only young peopleidentified as being at high risk of reoffendingwere directedinto the youth justiceprojects.

227 EFFECTIVENESS OF SERVICES

"Realistically looking at how effective services are is a really difficult thing to

do be different key ...there would viewsand emphasisabout what they see as the point on effectivenessandpriorities whatever."

This responseby a criminal justice social worker reflected the theoretical debate about the

definition of effectivenessin social work and criminal justice in Scotland (see Chapter

Three).Questioning the actualconcept of effectivenesswas a commonresponse to questions

on the topic, and was a difficult question to answer if partners were unclear about what

servicesthe projectsprovided. Another criminal justice worker was adamantthat asking the

questionwas unlikely to receivea coherentresponse:

"How canyou ask that question.I think it's really hard to say,I think you have to put it

into perspective,that theseare young people who have a lot of difficulties, who have a

lot of issues,who havea lot of negativebehaviour. And I think realistically to try and

say whether or not it's effectivewould dependon a lot of things, dependingon whether

or not you think you're effectivein termsof offendingbehaviour, or effectivein termsof

But, they don't relationships..... realistically effectivecan't mean offend any more and they're normal, moral, happy citizens, it's not going to happen.I think realistically

that's somethingthat everybodyis kind of aware of "

Regarding Connect,of those respondentswilling to make a statement,there was a general

consensusthat the project was providing a good service, althoughthe reasonsfor this varied

228 becauseof the various understanding,described below, about what constitutes cffcctivc practice:

"I think on the whole, yes, Connect they are excellent, in that they visit very quickly

after they are referred."

"The quick answer would be their ability to pick referrals up quickly.And that's got to

be good, and thefact that you know they're commencingor engagingwith families and

young peoplestraight away."

"I think it's beeneffective in that it's really got the young person to think about their

behaviour It hasn't but it has it. " ...... alwaysstopped them, got them to think about

"I think the workerson a personal level have excellentskills in engagingyoung people.

But I don't think they're meeting the what works criteria of what really works with

youngpeople."

"Connect, I don't know, it's dijficult to tell at the moment,but they do offer lots of

Connecthas lot teamsin terms support to youngfolk ...... takena pressure off the area

of thework that they'reable to do with theyoungfolk. "

Responsesto questions about the effectivenessof Freagarrachwere more limited, and a

numberof respondentshad no experienceof work with them. This probablyrelates to the

relatively low numbersof peopleFreagarrach work with andthe high thresholdfor accessing

the services.However, those who did have experienceagain expresseda variety of views. A

229 number referred to the Lobley et al (2001) study as an indicator of the project's apparent

success.One panel memberreferred to the study as highlighting an effective project a few years ago, but suggestedthat it needed to be revisited in the light of more recent developmentsin youth justice andwith the adventof Connect.

One of the more prominent commentsin relation to the effectivenessof both projects was their ability to engageyoung people,often when other serviceshad failed to do so. A number of children and families social workers believed this ability to engagewith the young people arosebecause the projectswere not perceivedas social work, 105even though some felt the service provided was no different to that which social workers could offer if given more resources.Freagarrach workers were clear that the ability to engagein a positive relationship with the young peoplewas the key to effective practice:

"I think it's really effectiveat engaging them.I can say that hand on heart, the set up,

the place, the safespacefor them,the kind of holistic approach,I think is more likely to

havebeen I do, engageyoung people who at other services...... meanthat's what we we know that most change comes through relationships and relationship building with

I theseyoungsters who are absolutelyscunnered with social work ...... and think that's what Freagarrach does well, and what I've been struck with has been building

relationshipsand sticking with youngpeople. "

Many of the responsesto questionsabout the effectivenessof either Connect or Freagarrach derived from the individual experiencesthat usershad with the projects,which again related to relationships:

's The evaluationof the Matrix projectin Falkirk (Mcivor andMoodie 2002) found a similar pattemregarding perceptions of social workers.

230 "Certainly for ConnectI meanas I say I have nothing but admiration and praise for

the work that I havebeen involved with them."

"What I in I've being done, it's can say my experience... with regards to the work seen greatly appreciatedby the people whom they work with you know. Youjust get a sense

you know theyoung people seemto engagewell with them."

While theseindividual responsesare to some extent anecdotal,people were more willing to attribute effective work to the projectsin relation to the experiencesof the young peoplethey had referredand / or the positive relationshipsrefeffers had developed.This again highlights the importance of relationshipsin all aspectsof the youth justice process.As this Connect staff membersuggested:

"Ae tool in thejob is important than do, is main you ...... what's more what you who you are you know, and your ability to engageand maintain relationships with young

people. "

This view was supportedby the children and families social worker who observedthat:

"Themost effective, I think is ourselves.I think it's ourselvesand thework that we do

ourselves,and I think there is a huge reliance on se6rto do stuff, becausewe are very

limitedin resources."

231 The young people interviewed indicated that they also found relationshipsto be the most

important aspectof the projects. "Somebodyto sit and talk to" or "[worker] helpsyou with your life, " reflected widespreadcomments about the roles of individuals. The successof

Connect for one young personwas related both to practical help and emotionalsupport, and

the fact that they related well to their key worker. This was to the extent that the key worker

was describedas "more of a friend to me," with whom the young person had built a

relationshipand trust. Another aspectof both Connect and Freagarrachthat was touchedon

was the non-judgementalaspect of the work. As one young person noted about their key

worker, "he's been totally opened minded." In some respects this was contrastedwith

previous experiencesof statutory social work teams where confidentiality (for example

informing parents)was somethingyoung peoplewere concernedabout.

Thesecomments point to the fact that young people appreciatedthe relationships they had

with staff at the projects. VAiile somedescribed this as better than the relationshipwith their

social worker, young people were aware of other pressuressocial workers may have been

under. The importance of interpersonalrelationships is increasingly being addressedin the

context of desistanceand effective intervention with offenders (Rex 1999; Trotter 1999;

Burnett 2004; McIvor 2004) and for the young people this was clearly the most important

aspectOf contactwith the projects.For professionalsat the projectsthere was a constant

dissonance(reflected in discussionsat Connectteam meetings) between the desire to provide

&programmes'and the belief that forming positive relationshipswas the key to effective

interventions.

232 Reoffending as a measure of effectiveness

Despite recognition of the difficulty of defining effectivenessthere was also a pragmatic understandingthat the performancesof the various projectsand agencieswould be judged on criteria determinedby the ScottishExecutive in national policy, by the Council in responseto the local audit, and in somecases by the various funding streams.As noted by this children and families social worker:

"Ultimately the youth justice agenda driven by the Executiveis all about the positive

impact and changes that are made on these kids behaviour, on their criminal

behaviour,and ultimately that's the proof "

The Scottish Executive's aim for youth justice to reduce the number of young people

identified as persistent offenders by 10% by 2006 (Scottish Executive 2002a) was at the

forefront of a number of responses,although by no meansmentioned by a majority. There

was, however, consensusthat this cannot, and should not, be the only aim for the youth justice projects and that effectiveness should involve other measures,which included

outcomessuch as increasedsocial inclusion, improved relationshipsand attendanceat school.

When asked specifically about how effective they thought Connect had been at reducing

reoffending,most respondentssuggested the project had been successfulin this respect,

although they were less clear about the evidence for this. Criminal justice staff were more

guardedin their appraisaland more likely to acknowledgethey did not know:

233 "I haveno idea howsuccessful they are, evenhow they measurethat success."

'7 don't rememberseeing any stats or summaryofsuccess, or somethinglike that. "

This more circumspectview about the questionof effectivenessby the criminal justice staff was perhapsindicative of their increasedfamiliarity with the effective practice agendaand the indicatorsthat are usedin the adult systemto measureeffectiveness.

Staff at Connect were also clear about their effect on reoffending rates, "we don't know don't know because don't " Staff ...... we we get rates of people who reoffend. at

Connect were clear in their replies, acknowledgingthat on the whole "nothing has been measured" and there is "no overall picture of it so far, " althoughthere was a 'feeling' that the servicewas being effective in its work with young people.106 As suggestedby Hedderman and Sugg(1997: 52), "they believetheir programmeswork, but they cannotprove it and they know that manycould work evenbetter. "

There was a belief that the youthjustice projects in Falkirk were working well for the young people and the wider community, but few peoplewere able to provide 'evidence' to confirm theseviews. "I think it's anecdotal,it'sjust afeeling I have" and "I've no evidenceto back it up, but Ijust get a good feeling, maybefrom the type of people that are working there, that good things are happening." were typical responses.This echoes Vanstone's (2000:173) argumentthat:

" With theadvent of theYouth Justice Referral Group it is expectedthis should change, and numbers of newcharges accrued by young peopleattending the project should be available on aregular basis.

234 "Throughout its history, communitybased work with offendershas beenjustified partly

by its weýfarerole and partly by a belief in its effectivenessrather than any overt signs

of that effectiveness."

Young people themselveswere clear that the reasonthey had been referred to both Connect and Freagarrachwas for offending, or drug and alcohol use linked to offending behaviour.

The anecdotalevidence from the young people also suggestedthat work at the projects had, as this young person stated, "kept me out of trouble." Another young person identified the links betweenoffending behaviourand other aspectsof life, suggestingthe work undertaken:

"Reducesyour offending, well not necessarilystraight away, but it can reducecertain

parts of it, just overall, itjust basically helpsyou with your life. "

This perceptionof the interventionsnot reducing offending immediately, and impacting on other aspectsof life, reflects the views of many of the respondents,professionals and young people, who believed that while reducing offending was ultimately the aim of the youth justice projects,other intermediatemeasures of effectivenesswere important.107

As this thesiswas being written the first 'evidence' of 'effectiveness' in reducing reoffending was being provided through the basic 'in house' evaluationsof the YJRG. Of the 57 young peoplereferred to Connectfrom I September2003 to 31 March 2004,73% were identified as not having reoffended,with the correspondingfigure for Freagarrachbeing 33% (basedon police data, not reconvictions / hearing referrals). These figures were not based on any

systematic comparison of the circumstancesof the young people, the level of risk of

11ft is worthnoting that looking at offendingbehaviour was not thefirst responseof anyyoung people when asked how effective they believedthe projects had been.

235 reoffendingwith or without intervention, the actual natureof the interventionor any control group. The data provide some tentative comment on the effectivenessof the projects, and while no finn conclusion can be drawn about the effectivenessof the projects in reducing reoffending,such 'do-it-yourser (Blagg and Smith 1989:107) evaluations are valuable.

Worth noting, however, as a memberof Freagarrachstaff identified, is that any changewas difficult to attribute to the projects alone given that numerous other agenciescould be

involved with the young person on a collaborativebasis. This reiteratesthe observationthat

"lower reconvictionfollowing an intervention could be attributable to many other variables instead of, or as well as, the intervention" (Burnett and Appleton 2004:112). Another paradox of partnershipworking may be that it becomeseven harder to identify the actual

factorsor interventionsthat contributeto any reductionsin offending behaviour.

Wbile the statisticsare far from 'proof of the projects' successin reducing offending they appearto indicate that in the short term at least there is some reduction in offending for young people attending Connect and Freagarrach.The fact that these figures were being made available through the YJRG indicated the effectivenessthat the formation of inter- agencypartnerships had in generatingdata and beginning the transition to implementing an

evidence-basedagenda through the generationof monitoring andevaluation statistics.

Alternative measuresof effectiveness

Thereis an increasingrecognition that in projectsfor persistentoffenders there needs to be

wider measuresof effectivenessthan reoftendingrates and cost effectiveness(Worrall and

Mawby 2004). This is Uely to be more pertinent to youth justice projects operating

236 ostensibly in a welfare framework, and respondentsin the interviews reflected such sentiments.However, information disseminatedvia the YJRG evaluations(Falkirk Council

2004b; 2005) only provided 'outputs' and (tentative) 'outcomes' (Garland 1996) on success in reducing offending, rather than additional measureslike processesof interventions and increasedsocial inclusion. While this probablyreflected the agendaof the ScottishExecutive for evidence-basedpractice, such evaluationscould in the ftiture provide the opportunity for a wider rangeof outcomesand promote other benefitsof the multi-agencyapproach.

Respondentswith the relevant experiencesindicated that other information was collected during the review processat various points of supervision,including the final review. Both referrers,and project staff indicated that they felt this was an important arena for obtaining information abouthow the young people,supervising workers and other agencieshad viewed the intervention. Additionally, evaluation forms were routinely employed to elicit views of young people, referring social workers and others engagedin the work. This information could be employed to provide a wider variety of outcome data that could deflect criticism

aboutthe narrow spotlight of evaluations,focussed too much on reducingoffending.

CONCLUSION

This chapterhas examinedvarious aspectsof servicedelivery establishedin Falkirk sincethe

emergenceof Connect.The findings revealeda complex picture of the relationshipbetween

thepartnership arrangements and the delivery of services,related to theprofessionals' wider

views of policy as discussedin Chapter Six. The intricate nature of the work involved in

dealing with young people who offend and the challengesfaced in adopting new working

237 practices linked to evidence-basedinterventions and increasedmonitoring and evaluation were alsoreflected.

The referral and assessmentprocess for the youthjustice projectswas still in a developmental stageand respondents were divided on many aspectsof the process.The flexible natureof the referral processwas perceivedto be beneficial becauseit enabledyoung peopleto accessa service to meet their needs, in some casesa service that otherwise they would not have received. However, while easieraccess to servicesfor young people should be encouraged,

accessthrough a youth justice route may not be ethically, or theoretically,desirable.

In this respect,while the use of the Assettool was regardedas a major improvementfor the

assessmentprocess, its use should not automaticallymean formal youthjustice interventions.

As Baker (2004) found in England and Wales, Asset was employed in different ways, as a

risk assessmenttool, level of servicetool and engagementtool, with the potential for use in

the policy and planning processand as an evaluation tool. This indicated a high level of

discretion for the professionals involved, but also some inconsistency in its use, with

potential implications for young people. Obtaining the correct balance is difficult (Canton

and Eadie 2005).

NationalStandards are clearthat a comprehensiveassessment, using a recognisedtool, must

be completedon all youngpeople referred to a Hearingon offencegrounds. Asset is a formal

assessmenttool and careneeds to be exercisedwhen extending its use to all youngpeople

referredto the YJRG for whom there are 'concerns' about offending becausethis carriesthe

potential for net widening and fonnalising interventions. If, as discussedin Chapter Six,

diversion from prosecutionor a Hearing is an aim of Connect, diversion from the use of

238 formal criminogenic risk assessmentsmay also be beneficial in a welfare framework. Asset has the potential to accuratelyassess criminogenic need (Baker et al 2002; Baker 2004) and divert young people from specialistprojects, it also has the potential to widen the formal net (Muncie 2004).

The model for youth justice arrived at in Falkirk relies on the provision of additional, transparentservices to meet the needs of young people. The future of both Connect and

Freagarrachmay rest on the delivery of 'programmes' that provide specific services for young people to addresscriminogenic need, and which do not replicate servicesprovided elsewhere.Confusion aboutthe role of Connect especiallyas a prevention,early intervention or effective intervention project does not help in clarifying 'programme' content and the natureof the servicesprovided.

Strategic policy aimed at gathering and disseminating systematic data regarding the effectivenessof projects was missing at the outset. Dissemination of such information is important to clarify what it is youth justice projects are providing and avoid the confusion regarding which young peoplethey are working with. In Falkirk the YJRG evaluationshave begunto addressthis issueand combinedwith a clearercommunication strategy may address much of the confusionabout content and effectiveness.Systems were beginningto be implementedto gatherdata to measureoutputs and outcomes,and it was hopedthat the reoffendingdata from thepolice, via the YJRG,will ultimatelyprovide an indicationof the

effectivenessof Connectand Freagarrachin this respect.However, limiting effectivenessto reoffendingoutcomes is likely to reinforce this as the only aim of services,when it was clear from interviewees that a simple measure of reoffending would not do justice to the complexities of the lives of the young people. While ultimately the successof local and

239 national youth justice policy will be judged on the reduction of reoffending rates arnong

young people, the YJRG and its multi-agency partnershave an opportunity to incorporatea wide variety of performanceindicators in the evaluative role and move beyond a narrow

focus on offending rates.Falkirk being a pilot areafor the Decider project, organisedby the

Criminal Justice Social Work Centre to develop an evaluativeframework for youth justice,

also provides an opportunity to evidence all aspectsof effectiveness,rather than simple

offending rates.

Wherethere was almostunanimous agreement, amongst young peopleand professionalswith

direct contacts with the projects, was with respect to the ability of staff at Connect and

Freagarrachto forin positive working relationshipswith the young people.This aspectof the

projects was seen as particularly effective, often in cases where the young person had

experienceddifficulty in engagingwith social workers in area teams.What was not evident

was how this may translate into other areas of effectiveness, as the ability to form

relationshipswas perceivedas an effective aspectof the work in itself. There is an absenceof

an evidencebase and clear understandingabout the efficacy of good relationship building,

and what the essentialcomponents are that may lead to other outcomes(Burnett 2004). In the

light of emergingevidence about the importanceof relationshipsas a key step in beginningto

address offending behaviour (Batchelor and McNeill 2005; Burnett & Appleton 2004;

McNeill et al 2005; Porteous 2005) this may be an area of work in Falkirk wordi

investigatingfurther.

Developmentof serviceprovision in Fafldrk has highlighted the inherent ambiguities of the

new youth justice in Scotland.The fundamentalparadigm shift to 'progmmme' basedservice

delivery and the 'what works' agendahas challengedprofessionals in their understandingof

240 best practice in work with young people. The introduction of youth justice projectsutilising assessmenttools focussing on criminogenic needs, 'programmes' focussing on offending behaviour and evaluationsprimarily detailing reconviction rates, has altered the balanceof the welfare principle. These initiatives are beginning to question the assumptionsof the

Kilbrandon Conunittee that young people who offend and those in need of care and protection require similar interventionsto addressall their needs (SHHD 1964).However, there is no reasonto assumeadopting new working practicescannot be accommodatedin a

HearingsSystem still consideredto be humaneand effective (NCH Scotland2004).

The challengeto meet the needsof young people, while introducing practices to meet the needsof the Scottish Executive, has resulted in a complex picture of service provision that

complicatesattempts to assessits development.The 'confiising and messybusiness' (Muncie

and Hughes2001) is now apparentin Scotland.From a 'what works' theoreticalperspective,

to meet the National Standardsset by governmentand increasemonitoring and evaluation of

services working with young people involved in offending behaviour, developmentsin

Falkirk have been positive. Improved referral procedureswere in place, the systematic

application of an Asset assessmentwas well established,efforts at implementing more

structured offence focussedwork was evident, programmesand projects were delivering

6specialist'services and basic measures of effectivenesshad beenintroduced.

Alternatively, the developments may be perceived as moving away from the informal diversionary aspectsof the Hearings System, replacing it with more formal youth justice

processes(Goldson 2005b), but without the checksand balancesof a due processsystem.

Wideningthe justice net and labellingyoung people as 'offenders'at an earlierage and for

relatively innocuous,or relatively few, offences (Muncie 2004) may be a corollary of this.

241 The promise of welfare services, but only through a justice route, is theoretically and conceptuallyinexcusable for young people, and there is now some danger in Scotland that this processhas begun, despite the best intentionsof thoseproviding the services.

The youth justice projects were delivering a 'what works' agendathat in many respects encompasseda wider definition than has traditionally been linked with the discourse.The importanceof relationshipsand the wider context of offending behaviour were more to the fore as the youth justice services remained located primarily under the auspices of the

HearingsSystem. However the 'Getting it Right' consultation (Scottish Executive2005a) is likely to raise more professional and ethical dilemmas and perhapsincrease the dissonance found in professionalsin the care and control debate.The, at times, confusing delivery and understandingof servicesevidenced in this Chapter may also increaseas the 'Third Way' blurs conceptualfi-ameworks and understanding of bestpractice with young people.

242 CHAPTER EIGHT

A MULTI-PROFESSIONAL TEAM IN A MULTI-AGENCY

PARTNERSHIP

This chapterdiscusses the establishmentand developmentof Connectas a multi-professional team in the wider context of the multi-agency working arrangementsin Falkirk. The evolution of the Connect project is examined in relation to the perceptionsof the partner

organisations;about its role in local youth justice policy and whether as a result of its

establishmentthere has been any change in the perceptions of partnership working.

Experiencesare examinedin relation to communicationand information sharing,identified as

important factors in the effectivenessof multi-agency arrangements(Atkinson et al 2002).

The discussionof casemanagement procedures is prominent as it becameapparent during the

fieldwork that the issue of statutory responsibility / case managementwas a key factor in

local multi-agencyrelationships. It is arguedthat identifying a clear understandingabout the

case managementrole will facilitate the most significant improvement in partnership

working. The establishmentof Connectand its inter-agencypartnership with Freagarrachand

the YJRG are identified as importantfactors in the wider developmentof youth justice

partnershipworking in Falkirk.

CONNECT - THE MULTI-PROFESSIONAL TEAM

With the establishment of Connect, practice in Falkirk began to encompassnot only

collaborationbetween professions but inter-professionalpractice in one project, with one set

of aims and objectives-a multi-professionalteam (Payne2000). The YJRG and the

243 coordinationof referralswith Freagarrachensured co-operation between the two projects in an inter-agencypartnership. In theory this inter-agencypartnership established a seamless service for young people involved in offending behaviour, from the children and families social work teamsto the youthjustice projects.

The decisionto form a multi-professionalteam was madeshortly after the 2000 Youth Crime

Review and its establishmentwas felt to be the most positive use of resourcesfor youth justice services in Falkirk given the already well establishedpatterns of multi-agency working. Prior to Connect,Freagarrach was an establishedand nationally recognisedservice for working with young offenders, albeit only those identified as persistent. Freagarrach, although potentially a multi-professional team, had predominantly comprised of social workers over its history, although its effectivenesswas in part attributed to the good inter- professionalworking arrangementsthat existed within the Falkirk area (Lobley et al 2001).

Many respondentsindicated that a multi-professionalteam had been merely the next step in the evolution of local multi-agency working arrangements.At the time of its establishment

Connect was unique in Scotland in the number of professionalsthat it encompassedin one teazn.

To understandthe evolution of Connect,reference is madeto the four stageconceptualisation

of team developmentbased on Tuclunan's(1965) model, identified as the classic,most

commonview of teamdevelopment (Payne 2000). The original modelhas been updated (see

Farrell et al. 2001; Dechant et al 1993) to take account of the cyclical nature of team developmentbecause the original was basedon laboratory experimentsrather than 'real life' enviromnents(Payne 2000).

244 The forming stage commencesteam development and the process of becoming a team member,followed by the conflict or storming stagecharacterised by much disagreementand discussionover roles andnature of the team. The norming stagerelates to the point at which team membersagree on the aims and objectives, reach some consensuson roles and a commitment to joint working through synergisedlearning (Dechant et al 1973).Finally the performing stage reflects a team's ability to work together and addressconflict through regular developmentmeetings and having confidencein their ability as a team to tackle any

issues.Development is not linear and the cyclical nature of the process is the important

factor. In effect the cycle may continue on smaller or bigger revolutions for the duration of the team as new membersjoin and leave, policy changesand aims and objectives alter to meet thesepolicy changes(Hart and Fletcher 1999).

Establishing the team - 'forming'

Connect became operational as a team in June 2001, five months before this research

commenced, although referrals were not accepted until September of that year while

procedures were established and team members presented a nurnber of promotional

workshops and road shows.During the initial six months of the project there were ongoing

advertisementsfor project workers to work in a multi-professionalyouth justice team. These

adverts did not stipulate that any particular professional qualification would have any

inherent advantagein securing a post. With the absenceof any legislation in Scotland

regarding the composition of youth justice teams its membership (gee page 117) was

influencedby perceptionsof local need andresponses to the adverts.

245 It is important to identify at this point that Connect actually had two distinct stagesof forming and storming during the period of this thesis because,after being establishedfor about one year, most of the original team membersmoved on to new employment.Having been unable to interview all these staff it is not possible to statethat this movement was precipitated by difficulties conceming the team, or was merely a result of employment opportunitieselsewhere. This refonning of the temn is identified by Payne(2000) as a feature of team developmentin a real world setting and highlights the cyclical nature of team development.While most of the quoted examplesthat follow were obtainedfrom the present

Connectteam, observationof the previous team developmentmeetings suggestedthat many of the issueswere the same.

Funding from various sourcesshaped the composition of the team at the beginning although,

latterly, more centralisedyouth justice specific funding allowed staff to be appointedto meet need. Initially this flexibility led to tensions around individual roles of the team members with "a big division betweenthe professions and wanting different directions." Evolution,

discussion and constructive responsesto conflict and disagreementovercame initial role

confusion by identifying issuesfor eachteam member.It was suggestedthat initial teething

problemswere due to the project being establishedtoo quickly because:

"There hadn't been a great deal ofplanning going into how information is shared or

whose role is what, and so a lot of issueswere coming up on the ground, whereasif

they had beenthought about beforehand in theplanning stages that would havebeen better."

246 in practice the tensions on the ground during the processof team development were an elementof the next phaseof the team's evolution. Although, in hindsight, the tensionswere difficult for some team members,they were a constituentpart of the team learning to work together.

Developing professional identity and roles of the team - 'storming'

"You haveto gain an understandingabout otherprofessions, and how they view things

and thefact they may view things differently and may want to work differently."

Initially team membersexpressed their lack of understandingof colleagues' professional identities andwere challengedin their own attemptsto clarify their professionalrole. Gaining this understandingwas a componentof the teamjourney following the initial forming phase and the period of 'conflict' was evident in both the initial team and that which followed departureof the original teaxnmembers. Discussionsabout how Connectshould function, its role in the wider policy, what their individual roles were and how work was organised

(Farrell et al 2001) were repeatedas the team evolved.108

There was some concern expressedby a number of the Connect staff group that at the beginningpeople were:

"More concernedwith protecting their professionsthan their clients' needsor the best

Ifelt thinking the method of providing a service..... people were not about greatest

109in practicethe initial teamnever actually movedon beyond the storming stagebecause of the changesin staff after 12 months.

247 interest of the service, of Connect,or the public. They were trying to defend their own

corner.

This defending of their own comer, and undertaking what they perceived to be their roles,

resultedin a number of staff recognisingthat the team were not working harmoniously as a

whole and that practice was very much individualised around their previous professional

experiences.As this team member suggestedthey "... kind ofjust got stuck in traditional

social work. " Becauseof the challengesof working in a multi-professionalteam and being

unsure about roles, professionalsreverted to what they were familiar with in their practice.

While Lowe and O'Hara (2000) identify a lack of client focus and professionsworking in

isolation as problems of 'uni-disciplinary' practice, the mere establishing of a multi-

professionalteam did not guaranteeovercoming theseproblems, which haveto be addressed

if a team is to learn to work together.The particular impassethat Connectcame to during this

storming stage may have reflected why there was a lack of clarity about service and

programmedelivery that was apparentamongst team membersand referrers (see Chapter

Seven).

To progress from protecting their own professions and working as individuals, effective

working required team membersto clarify their own identities within the team, the team's

identity in local policy and how they contributed to the wider network (Payne2000). From

observationof the teamdevelopment meetings, in additionto the interviewresponses, it was

apparentthat team members struggled with theseissues and that the transition was difficult:

"I think therewas a lot of conflictingideas about what we weresupposed to be doing

and therewas a lot of difficultiesin termsof thrashingout who would be doing what,

248 [and] a lot of the time where wefitted with other servicesin terms of what we would

and wouldn't do. "

Having little, or no, experienceof multi-professionalteamwork, most of the Connect staff probably did not recognisethat settling theseissues was a vital part of development(Payne

2000) and ultimately beneficial (Molyneux 2001). At times, as an observer,the emotions theseissues raised in staff memberswere powerful, and it was during theseperiods that the impartial nature of the studentobserver was particularly challenged.Various professionals

expressedviews aboutwhy their approacheswere more appropriateand soughtconfirmation

that the studentresearcher did not considerit appropriateto provide.

While for many of the staff a better understandingof their role and identity in the team would

have been clearer if the identity of Connect in the wider policy had been clarified at a

strategiclevel, the lack of establishedcriteria, both for individuals andthe project, ultimately

helped to shapethe project into its presentform. The absenceof guidelinesand prescriptive

planning has been identified as being beneficial for successful multi-professional team

development(Molyneux 2001) and change(Fullan 1986). Developing their argument from

Fullan (1986),Hart and Fletcher(1999: 54) suggestthat:

44-planningthat is too prescriptive may be counterproductive, since change is a

contingentprocess that must be capable of adapting to unforeseencircumstances and

situations."

The relatively autonomousnature of Connectwithin local policy and the absenceof any

prescribedcentralised, national agenda allowed Connect to definetheir role in thelocal multi-

249 agency networks. While this was within the constraints of the youth justice standards

(Scottish Executive 2000), as discussedin Chapter Six, these guidelines were open to interpretation. The autonomy enabledConnect to adaptto unforeseencircumstances which

included, at various times, social workers in the team agreeing to undertake background

reports for the Children's Hearing when staffing levels in the social work tearns were

stretched,undertaking short pieces of work at short notice, being flexible in allocation of

casesand being able to reject unsuitablecases.

As part of the overall learning and developmentprocess, role identification involved staff

memberssitting down and explaining their professional roles, ideas and values,and gaining

an understandingof what other professionalsdid and how they fitted into a youth justice

team.As oneteam memberdescribed it:

"I think it's coming in with your idea and people having their ideas, and trying to get

them to meetsomewhere in the middle, while still holding on to your conceptof what it

is that you're doing. "

'Meeting in the middle' was the key descriptionof this phaseof pooled learning (Dechant et

al 1973) and was the result of sitting down and talking (even arguing), expressingconcerns

and feelings and enduring conflictual team development days which often resulted in little

overall agreement.Wbile this processsupported the team's evolution to the next stage of

their learning unfortunately, for the original team members,the 'norming' stagewas never

achievedand it maybe surmisedthat when team members left aftertwelve months there were

unresolvedissues and negative experiences of multi-professionalteams.

250 Agreement and learning- Inorming'

Once someunderstanding was achievedand team membersbecame more confident (Farrell et al 2001) the team movedonto the 'norming' stageof their developmentwhere therewas a collective refraining (Dechant et al 1973),or sharedunderstanding, of their personalvalues and beliefs. In addition to personaljourneys this phase for Connect as a project involved formulating clear aims and objectives,committing to focus on and developprogrammes and attempting to work as a team rather than individuals. Achievement of this enabled the acknowledgementthat "a lot ofjoint working doeshappen in the team." The developmentof group 'programmes' was especially beneficial to this process as it finally enabled 'joint working' and facilitationof groupsrather thanthe individualisedpractice identified earlier.

This also included co-working with Freagarrachand staff from field social work teams.The appointmentof a programmedevelopment worker further aidedthis processwhen other team memberswere busy engagedin daily work andreferrals, unable to developprogrammes.

This processof the team learning was clearly elucidatedin this descriptionthat capturesthe challenges in reconciling issues of professional values and practice in a new multi- professionalteam:

"I seea lot of commitmentfromthe team, to work as a team,I wasn'tthe only who was

challenging my values, I know a lot of other people have been doing the same thing.

And therehas beenconsiderable development, Ifeel comfortablein the teammyse4r,

and hopefidly otherpeople will befeeling the same.It's a big processthough you know.

You're never ever going to give up on your valuesper se, but you're going to have to

251 blend bit to be a them or mendthem or changethem, movethem a wee ...... there's got mergencesomewhere of the values,it hasn't beeneasy at times, I've had to swallow a

bit ofpride, and say OK we'll go along your line, but I have realised the benefitsof

that."

The shift from the position of defending their own comer to one of mutual respect and working as a team is describedby Laidler (1991) as achieving 'professionaladulthood. ' This occurs when professionalautonomy is deferred to effective working togetherbecause team membersare clear in their own identities andthe role of the project. This did not meanthat at

Connect autonomy and discretion were ignored, merely that there was a recognition of others' views. Notwithstanding arduous team development meetings and discussions,the moment that characterisedreaching 'adulthood' was when team membersbegan referring to themselvesby their professionaltitles, rather than the generic title 'project worker,' because they becameconfident in their professional identities and ability to work cohesively as a temn.

Originally, postsat Connectwere secondmentsfrom substantiveposts and the title of 'project worker' was adoptedat the outsetin an attemptto define the team as a new project. This was similar to the YOTs in England and Wales where team membersadopted 'youth justice' worker as their title but where there were issuesregarding blurring of roles and sharing of tasks (Holdaway et al 2001; Burnett & Appleton 2004). The philosophy of Connect team memberschanged regarding professional identity, so that when askedabout their title typical replies included," well I don't see it [title] as a project worker, being known as a project worker tends to dilute what you do. " The argumentsabout protecting professionalroles and identity dissipatedwith the changeof job title until nobodypreferred being describedas a

252 project worker. This simple recognition of their professional identity, albeit in a multi- professionalteam, was a defining moment for Connect in working as a team.This movement would suggestthat role flexibility was necessaryin the early stagesbut was able to be replaced by more clarity and identity as the team progressed(Kane 1975). This role flexibility in the early stagesmay also have been relevant to Connect as a project, as some respondentscommented on increasedclarity asthe project developedover time.

While not easyto speculateon reasonsfor the preferred title, it may be that the absenceof a legislative framework in Scotland,and the various practicesaround the country, renderedthe youth justice or project title virtually meaningless.'Youth justice worker' did not seem to have been acceptedto date as a distinct professionin Scotland.Also, as one worker pointed out, within social work, youth justice work did not haveits own post-qualifying route. It may also be that 'project' or 'youth justice worker' had connotationswith the more punitive approachto youth justice in England and Wales and was not acceptablein Scotland where there remained a focus on the welfare aspect of work with young people. Whatever the reason,the argumentthat multi-professionalteamwork is facilitated by a blurring of roles and identity, as suggestedin governmentdocuments (Payne 2000), was not supportedby the experiencesof Connect.

'Performing' and continuous learning

As the fieldwork ended the team compositionhad remainedrelatively stable for a considerableperiod and the phaseof continuouslearning (Dechant et al 1973)was arguably just commencingalthough, at the time of writing, no definitive statementcould be made about how well Connect were 'performing.' Programmes were being developed, the

253 evaluation processthrough the YJRG was delivering monitoring and evaluation data and team members were confident enough to challenge and disagree over issues relating to service delivery. What was evident was that Connect were at the stage where they could deliver services to meet the needs of partners in a team environment that was relatively cohesivefollowing the challengesencountered over the precedingthree years. However, the team membershipwas again changing and the new model proposed for youth justice in

Falkirk (see Chapter Four) would examine further Connect's ability and readiness to

'perfonn' as a team within an agreed identity and role. As highlighted in Chapter Six, perceptionsof roles may not be sharedby new members,or children and families staff under the proposednew arrangements.

Effectivenessof the multi-professional team approach

Regardingteam compositionand the efficacy of having a multi-professionalteam working in youthjustice the multi-professionalapproach was perceivedto be beneficial for serviceusers in Falkirk. While most respondentswere clear that the project was very much in a developmental stage, indeed should always be developing, perceptions of the multi- professional aspect of it were positive. The following responsescame from a variety of organisationsand professions, but all alluded to the benefit of a multi-professionalteam:

"I think it's getting there, I think it's a good way of working, having all the different

disciplines, the different experiencesyou can draw on it and, you know, provide a

better servicefor people. "

254 "I'd like to think it's hopefully don't that working ok...... the advantagesare that you need to go very far to get all the various talent and experience,you've hopefully got

that under the sameroof. "

"I know anecdotally that it's a good way of working. As to why, I think it's common

sensethat if you have a range of different talents and disciplines available within the

oneteam then I think that's bound to have a positive impact on a child's problems."

"I think it's crucial. I think it's obvious each child has different needs,and you know

obviouslysome young people need to be involvedwith expertsin different areas,so yes

I think it's good "

"I think becauseof the range of problems that children have, they have educational

problems, they havefamily problems, and you need that wide range of staff. That I

think is one of the great values,you feel that they're able to take the child as a whole

and deal notjust with the offending,but with the other things."

The one post consistentlymentioned in regardsto the efficacy of having a multi-professional teamwas the nurse, a professionviewed as a tremendousbenefit to the youngpeople and to other professionalsseeking a drugs service.The nursesuggested that:

"thefact that the local authority actually employedme is a step in the right direction, I

meanthey've employeda nurseyou know, and took me on. " 109

'" Expressperniission was obtained from the nurse to identifyher with specificcornrTwnts in this thesis.

255 The appointmentwas only for a two year period and it was by no means certain that the contractwould be extended.A secondqualified nursewas employedbut only under the title of 'SubstancePractitioner. '

The senior nursedescribed her role as "very specific" and at interview shewas clearer than other team membersabout her role in the team from the outset.There was little ambiguity abouther role to work with young people who have problematic drug use (the definition of problematicwas an issuethat took up much time in team meetingshowever). This clarity was reflectedin how other team membersand outsideprofessionals viewed the role.

The importanceplaced on individuals was a prominent theme of the successof the multi- professionalaspect of the work, perhapsmoreso than the mix of professions.As defined by the project workers, the successof the project in multi-professionalworking was due to the personalityand ability of the individuals rather than professionalbackground. This consensus was exemplified by theseproject workers in slightly different ways:

"I think possibly the key to effectivenessso far has been individual ability, rather then

strong multidisciplinary working, althoughthat has beenafactor as well. "

'7 think as a wholeit works well, but I think that comesdown to who the individuals

are, not necessarilythe roles. "

Tearnmembers were less concernedabout the professionalbackground of a worker than their ability to bond as a team member, with a child centredprofessional ethos and an outgoing personality.The concernsof staff membersthat people should gel was probably aidedby not

256 being constrainedby legislation regarding team composition, unlike England and Wales where there is a centralisedconcept of the 'ideal' professionalmembership of YOTs. Such a view may indicate that the successor failure of multi-professionalteams relies on the ability of the members to get on together rather than what profession they come from, or their inherent professionalskills. As legislating for different professionalcomposition of a team cannot develop good interpersonalskills these findings provide an interesting alternative view on what, or who, constituteseffective partnershipworking. They also provide ftu-ther evidencefor the importanceof relationshipsin developing partnerships,either with young peopleor other professionals.

There was little doubt from interviewsand observationof the developmentmeetings that there had been a substantialamount of soul searchingby different professionalsexposing their professional practice and values and leaving them open to scrutiny. Their personal experiencesand values were challengedand it was both a difficult and rewarding experience resulting in both professional and personalgrowth in a time of incessantchange (Horwath andMorrison 2000).

The change process

The developmentof Connect and understandingof the roles within and outwith the project was a continual changeprocess. Ongoing developments,both nationally and locally, will

continueto demandsuch a continuousdevelopmental process (Hart and Fletcher 1999).

Mile thelack of guidelinesand statutory direction was, for manyteam members, a sourceof frustrationat the time (seeChapter Six), it would appearthis aidedthe teamin developingits

own identity. There were no constraints linked to a bureaucratic idea of how a multi-

257 professionalteam should operate,or what the ultimate aims and objectiveswere. Flexibility was again a key issuefor the team learning and development.

An initial radical transitionalchange supported at the strategiclevel saw the introduction of

Connect as a completely new project for addressingyouth offending in Falkirk. Following this radical change,the unique and autonomousnature of Connectin the wider partnership arrangementsand the evolving policy agendaat a national and local level, meantthat further learning and development incorporated concepts of transformational and developmental change(Iles and Sutherland2001) "' to meet the new changesand policy direction.

Transformationalaspects of changewere apparentbecause the previous assumptionsof 'best practice' in work with young people who offend were supersededby a 'new order' (Clarke andNewman 1997:42), or way of working. For youth justice this involved multi-professional team working and the introduction of evidence-basedpractice in a managerialistculture of auditing and monitoring. Additionally, developing youth justice policy suggestedongoing change with few plans regarding the final structure or nature of service provision. These aspects of policy supported a concept of change that was readily adaptedto meet new challenges.However, the relatively unplannedcontinuous change envisaged for youth justice provision nationally (which has to be incorporatedinto local practice)was also accompanied by plannedchange at the local level as Connect evolved in an ongoing and cumulative way characterised.by adapting and assimilating ideas from various sourcesto improve daily practice. The various concepts of change exemplified the complex processesthat were

involved in the organisational.change and highlight that it is unlikely that any one

" (Hes and Sutherland2001) descnl)ethe range of approaches,tools and modelsfor understandingand nunaging changepractically. TUY also highlight that the organisational change literature covers tnany aspectsincluding descriptive accounts,theoretical and prescriptive models to guide changeprocesses, rypologies of approachesto changeand studiesinvestigating the effectivenessof changeprogranmies. Practical points for TnanagersunderWdng change are detailedby NCCSDO (2001).

258 prescriptive, static model of change could fully encompasschange in such complex arrangements(Pettigrew et al 1988;Van de Ven andPoole 1995).

Flexibility, and absenceof a static model of change,enabled the servicesin Falkirk to adapt to unforeseencircumstances and national policy relatively quickly. Like criminal justice social work (Scullion et al 2003), youthjustice social work serviceswill face the challengeof continuedchange driven by the corporatist, 'what works' agenda.What was not explicitly acknowledgedby respondentswas the fundamentalchallenge that the 'new order' presented to the establishedwelfare approach in Scotland. The presently evolving national policy, seekingresults and increasedoutputs, ensuresthat youth justice servicesacross professional boundarieshave to cope with transformation and the introduction of new initiatives and legislation while still delivering a service. The ability to adapt quickly has been, and will continue to be, vital and questionsthe validity of a bureaucratic,top-down, management agendafor change.

FALKIRK - THE MULTI-AGENCY PARTNERSHIP

While the overall perceptionof the partnershiparrangements cannot be attributedto the establishmentof Connect,its introductionand pairing with Freagarrachvia the YJRG appearedto havegreatly enhanced the positiveattributes of wider partnershipworking in

Falkirk. Respondentswere speakingvery much from their personalexperience since no independentstudies had lookedat the quality or effectivenessof themulti-agency approach in the Falkirk area,although the Lobley et al (2001) Freagarrachreport was mentionedby somerespondents as evidence for positiveworking relationships.

259 Amongst managersthere was generally a consensusof opinion that the Forth Valley Youth

JusticeStrategy group had fosteredgood multi-agencyworking acrossvarious agenciessince its inception. This consensus,however, was not apparent to front line practitioners who questionedthe contributions of the Forth Valley group as an effective strategic model.

Strategygroups should identify clear priorities and targetsfor development(Holdaway et al

2001), and the evidence fi-om.this researchindicated that clarity was absent. The recent

Justice 2 committeereport (Scottish Parliament 2005) also found evidenceof confusion in strategic groups about their role. These findings provide further evidencethat the goal of sharedobjectives and vision in youth justice partnershipsis proving elusive, and probably reflect the findings in Chapter Six uncovering divergent professionalopinions about youth justice.

Operational staff generally saw the influence of multi-agency working related to their

experiencesof contactswith other front line workers in the partner agencies,similar to the

informal collaborationsuggested by Payne(2000). The strategicgroups had previously been

identified as 'talking shops' (Falkirk Council 2003). This suggeststhat partnershipswere

operating at various levels and degreesof formality, and not necessarilyto the benefit, or

detriment,of overall arrangements.

Despite this divergenceof opinions, and concernsabout the focus of the policy, there was a

consensus,amongst both managersand practitioners, that there had been improvementsin

multi-agency working since the establishmentof Connect and Freagarrach.However, these

statementscould only be attributed and evidenced at the distinct levels of partnership

working, not acrossthe various levels (seeappendix 3).

260 A prominentreason for suggestingthat agenciesin Falkirk were working well was the size of the areaand the fact that most people, at leastat strategic/ senior managerlevel, knew each other. A legal professional, while acknowledging difficulties, suggestedthat the good relationships that had been fostered between the agenciesover the years enabled senior managersespecially to pick up the phone and deal with issuesquickly and make things happenso that 'Falkirk works':

"It's so much easier as well, you know yourseýfif you phone up somewhereand you

know somebody,if you're needinga specific thing it's far easier to obtain that if you

know who you're talking to, rather than phoning up as a voiceon the end of the phone,

don't know It difference it both " whoyou ..... certainly makesa and works ways.

The establishmentof Connect as a secondyouth justice project, and the changesfollowing the 2000 Youth Crime Review, seemed to further enhancethe perception of working

arrangementsfor this legal professional:

direction improvementhas been tremendous " We're going in the tight ...the overall

in terms of the quality of service the kind of things that can be addressed,the

kind of things that can be done with a supervision requirement.I think since all that's

happenedthe supervision requirement is a much more meaning&l thing than it was

before Ae kind that can be ...... quality of work, the assessments,the of work done, be Certainly have in I the time that can spent...... since these come think now

the work they'vedone is muchmore sophisticated, much more geared to lookingat the

child's needs."

261 Additional services,available more quickly, with good inter professionalworking, were seen as positive factors following the establishmentof Connect as a multi-professionalteam and the partnershipwith Freagarrach.This replicated findings from the Oxfordshire YOT study

(Burnett and Appleton 2004). The difference in Falkirk, however, was that the additional

serviceswere locatedin the youthjustice projects.Few, if any, other 'specialist' services,like

substanceuse, had evolved in the area as a result of increasedyouth justice money. Some

respondentsfelt this was a negativepoint suggesting"there are good agenciesthat deal with

specific things, but there's not enough agencies," while others suggestedthe emergenceof

too many initiatives and serviceswas not beneficial, resulting in "spreading yoursetf too

thinly, and not being able to carry through things as well as you can. " One social work

managerreferred to a proliferation of projects and servicesas 'projectitus' and expressed

concernabout the long-tenn prospectsof the projects.

These differences of opinion were difficult to reconcile and, as identified in Chapter Six,

there appearedto be no overall consensusabout whether there should be more specific

agenciesdelivering services or a concentration of services in one project. Wbile many

respondentsbelieved that the establishmentof a multi-professionalteam was beneficial there

were suggestionsof potential gaps in service regarding education,mental health and local

residential services for young people.112 Such opinions may reflect the subtle differences

between a multi-agency collaborative approachand employing a multi-professional team.

Whether all services can be encompassedin a 'holistic' multi-professional project is

debateable,but what maybe beneficialabout such projects is that they canunlock accessto

wider professionaland multi-agencynetworks (Cook et al 2001).Falkirk, by establishinga

multi-professionalteam, facilitated wider multi-agencyworking and observationat Connect

Thesepoints also minor thoseregarding specific services for 16and 17 yea oldsdiscussed in ChapterSix. Mentalhealth and education were also identified as potential Saps in theFast Track Hearing research (Hill et al 2005).

262 indicatedthat informal multi-agencynetworks increasedas the various professionals'shared' their networkswith colleagues.

The issue about the number and the type of services available also manifested itself in concerns about the possibilities, or in many casesthe realities, of duplication of work betweenagencies, with one criminal justice social worker suggesting"there is roomfor a lot of improvementand streamlining in the way that services work together." This will be returned to later since effective case managementshould prevent duplication of work, as shouldeffective strategicplanning regardingallocation of work to agencies.

This point about the duplication of serviceswas madeparticularly in respectof Connect and

Freagarrach.There was concern amongstsocial work respondentswho suggested"there's almost a bit where they're vying for trade in some respect," with a "kind of sense of competing with the other service, which is not really very healthy." While Connect and

Freagarrachshared a commonreferral route oneworker from Connectsuggested:

"There's a potentialfor conflict whenyou've got a pool ofyoung people, and you're a

provider and there's another provider in the market, I think that's always going to

createtension. "

Staff at Freagarrachalso concededthat therehad beentension at times, especiallywhen

Connectwas first established.While this tensionseems to havedissipated a little sincethe arrival of the YJRG, the residualeffects were apparentin someof the interviews. This issue of conflict in multi-agency partnerships is often seen as negative and something that a corporatistapproach seeks to minimise. However, it can be viewed as positive providing the

263 agenciesconcerned can work with the conflict to improve services(Crawford & Jones1995), as exemplified by the introduction of the YJRG. In some respectsthe introduction of closer partnershiparrangements in Falkirk may haveled to duplicationof servicesand someconflict between agencies. This may be a paradox of multi-agency working, where reducing

duplication is often cited as a reason for increasedcollaboration. These are points worth

consideringat national and local policy level when promoting the benefits of multi-agency working. There may be agenciesproviding similar services where the residual effects of

4competition'in the market economyare limiting the ability to work effectively together.

An areaof concernfor practiceteam social workers, especiallychildren and families, was the

questionof statutoryresponsibility for casesand the linked casemanagement responsibility.

Resourcesand funding difficulties emergedon a number of occasionsas impediments to effective partnerships,but the prominent feature of duplication and confusion about services was the identification of, and the role of, a casemanager.

CASE MANAGEMENT

Casemanagement was closely linked with statutoryresponsibility in Falkirk, where there had

been a working assumptionthat social workers holding supervision orders were the case

managers.Where a young person was referred to one of the youth justice projects with no

allocatedsocial worker, a project worker generally assumedthis role. There was no

strategically agreedmodel of casemanagement with respectto specialist, generic or hybrid

approaches(see Chapter Three).

264 Responsesfrom a variety of professionals,mainly social workers and project staff, identified a flexible approachto casemanagement, resembling a hybrid model.' 13Staff in social work teams varied in their approach to the amount of responsibility they maintained for the managementof cases.Social work 'case managers'indicated that in some instanceswhen a young person was referred to a project they virtually handedover responsibility to the staff member at Connect or Freagarrachto 'manage' the case. Others maintained more contact with the young person and were clear that the projects were for providing specific pieces of work on offending behaviour.

The approachto casemanagement that was highlighted by youth justice project staff, who in

the majority of caseswere not casemanagers, is highlightedby this descriptionof practiceby

a Connectworker:

"We've been accessingservices for young people like careers services, community

education,schools, whatever.So part of that is case management,care management,

trying to accessaccommodation whatever, we've been a bit of that. We should have

always been,and we are more, a caseworkservice though,so we should beproviding a

service; you know if it was a purchaser-providersplit, we'd be the provider and child

care would be thepurchaser, basically, or criminaIjustice or whatever.So I think weIII

be increasingly in the businessof doing stuff with young people, which would be direct

workbasically. "

Other descriptionsby Freagarrachstaff suggestedthat the role of the projects encompassed

casemanager responsibility in someinstances:

"I Otherprofessionals and young people inteMewed were not familiarenough with actual practice to commenton case management.

265 "It dependson what was the agreementat the outset,with the kind of case manager,

with the social worker. So if the person was on a supervisionorder, but they're happy

for you to be doing that, then it's kind of, it's quite individual to be honest. It's

individual to the social workershow they work and also the probation worker as well"

"It might not be the offending work that they're actually referredfor either, because

they are on probation. So it might befor the intensivesupport around the other areas."

"It's quite often about sessionstaken up getting them the basic essentialsof life, food,

in touch with thejob centre,careers, housing benefit. "

These descriptionsof practice from project staff suggestedthat once referred by a social worker to a project, a young person could often obtain a 'de facto' casemanager at Connect or Freagarrach.The concern about case managementwas not related to which model was practiced,but the identification of oneperson to co-ordinateservices. It appearedthat in some instancesthe youth justice projects were taking on the role of providers and brokers, and social workers who held orders were contracting out 'case management'to Connect and

Freagarrach.In other cases social workers were clear about the role of the youth justice projectsfor delivering specialistoffence focussedinterventions only.

Projectstaff describedhow they oftenliaised with, andbrokered additional input from, other services - including education,careers and housing - with whom they had good relations.

This led to the situation where a young personmay havehad one worker holding the statutory order and writing reports, while anotherworker in the youth justice project had most contact

266 with the young person and in many instances 'managed' the case. One Freagarrachstaff memberexplained how on someoccasions young peoplehad numerousprofessionals dealing with similar issuesand review meetingswere held to clarify roles and divide up the work.

Such practice suggeststhere was need for more clarity about who was casemanager, what this role entailed,its decision making power and the links with other agencies.Within this type of arrangementit was also easy to see why some respondents,like this Freagarrach worker, were concernedabout a duplication of role:

"I think probably there is room for improvementin terms of not duplicating work or

coordinating work,.. I think that is a difficulty sometimesin termsofpeople who are on

statutoryorders, and it's like whodoes what and whocommunicates what. "

Indications were that the casemanagement role was fluid and becausethe roles of the youth justice projects had not been clarified they provided a mix of direct caseworkand brokering of services.If Connect and Freagan-achwere, as one Connectteam memberindicated "keen to see ourselvesas a specialist service dealing with offending issuesand substancemisuse, " acting as case managers(generic, specialistor hybrid) or as a broker for other serviceswas probablyoutside their remit andled to confusionand duplication of services.

The confusion was apparentin the reply of one young personwhen askedwho they thought hadan overallgrasp of their 'case'. "I do" wasthe reply andwhile at first glancethis may seeman enlightenedclient-centred approach to casemanagement, it was clear this was not by design.This young person was not aware of professionalsroutinely liaising with eachother, and if they were he was not infortned. While this onereply cannotbe said to be representative

267 it gave an indication of potential problemsif one person is not clearly defined and identified

as the casemanager to co-ordinateservices.

Confusion aboutresponsibilities was also a concern for children and fwnilies social workers who expressedalarm that on a number of occasions as the case manager they were

'bypassed'by referralsto youthjustice projects madewithout their knowledge.One occasion

was describedwhere a referral was madeby anotherprofessional to the YJRG and on another

to the Sacro Restorative Justice Programme. While there was no indication this was

widespread, it again points to the difficulties of not having a clear approach to case

managementin an environmentof multi-agencyworking. As more agenciesbecome involved

with community safetyand youth justice, it will be vital to be unambiguousabout who is the

casemanager to avoid duplication of work andconfusion for young peopleand professionals.

With the confusion surroundingthe case managementrole it was understandablewhy some

referrersbelieved that Connectand Freagarrachshould have taken on statutoryresponsibility

for young peopledealt with at a Children's Hearingfor offending, therebyclarifying the issue

of casemanagement. As one children and families managernoted:

"It would be more appropriate for Connect to take on responsibility, not just for

workingwith thecase, but all the otherstuff thatgoes with it, all thedifficult bits that

go with it, attending Children's Hearings,preparing reportsfor Children's Hearings, if

need be attending court and what haveyou, and working with the family. And it just

doesn't seemawfidly logical the children andfamily social worker has to work with all

the other bits and Connect just works specifically with the offending behaviour,

becauseI think we knowthe connections. "

268 This view was sharedby nearly all the social workers interviewed from the area teams, whereasproject staff were in agreementthey did not want to hold statutory orders. There was, however, some degree of contradiction, even from the same person, regarding who holds the orders and the type of service delivered. While one children and families social worker suggested"I think it would be useful if all the different agenciescould hold orders," the sameperson also suggestedthat:

"I think as well it's important thatfamilies seethat a different serviceis being offered,

and notiust the social worker, who keepsplodding round to the door. "

This was supportedby similar views from a criminal justice worker:

"I reallyfeel strongly that Connectshould be an addition to the support that we offer

young people, and not insteadof. "

These apparently contradictory remarks may suggestthat while the question of the youth justice projects holding statutory responsibility may seem initially straightforward, some workers also value the 'different' servicethat they offer, a service that is less likely to be different if statutory orders are held. Young people also saw the projects as offering a differentservice because project staff werenot seenas being responsible for accommodating young people or breaching court orders. While this was positive for young people, it was mentionedat one of the group interviews that the projects should be more honestabout their role in relation to statutory orders and their responsibilities within a local authority fiwnework.

269 Interestingly,Cross et al (2003) suggestthat in Englandand Walesthe youth offending teams lost the focus on the 'whole' young personbecause they no longer held caseresponsibility for care and protection issuesand were chargedwith being casemanagers to addressoffending behaviour only. Working holistically with a young person,brokering servicesand holding statutoryresponsibility for court and hearing supervisionorders is a multifaceted interaction involving complex decisionsrelating to casemanagement. It was perhapsmore complicated in Falkirk because the youth justice projects were establishedas specialist programme providers and not as YOTs similar to England and Wales. Casemanagement responsibility was not the plannedrole for Connectand Freagarrach,although in somecases it evolved into this becauseof the pressureson areasocial work teams.Having more than one casemanager was likely to causeconfusion for young people, a duplication of servicesfor professionals and diverse lines of communication.These were not the consequencesenvisaged following multi-agency work, although in England and Wales young people are increasingly likely to have more than one identified casemanager because of the division betweenoffending and care and protection issues.The Scottish system shouldpreclude this situation andthe revised policy in Falkirk, with responsibility clearly placed within children and families social work teams, and referral to the specialist projects where appropriate, should fin-ther clarify the situation.

Notwithstanding the debateon who holds statutoryorders, the one clear aspectof practice in

Falkirk was the absencein many instances of an identified case manager that allowed workers, and young people, to be clear about who had the responsibility for co-coordinating the delivery of the care plan. While not diminishing professional discretion about who delivers which service,having one person identified as the casemanager would provide more

270 clarity andpermit a channelthrough which all work relating to the young personcould be co- ordinated.All agenciesshould be responsibleto one casemanager, especially if, as identified in recent Scottish Executive consultations (Scottish Executive 2004d; 2005c), the case managershould be responsiblefor ensuringthe implementationof the action plan. The 2004 consultationsuggests that for young people on supervisionto the HearingsSystem the case managershould always be an employeeof the local authority, with an indication that it will probablybe a social worker. For other young peoplethere are suggestionsit could be a social worker, teacheror police officer (Scottish Executive 2005a). The guidanceappears to allow for a generic,specialist or hybrid model of casemanagement, with the casemanager ensuring that all those identified as providing a service in the care / action plan maintain the agreed level of contact with the young person.Such standards,while welcomedin terms of who is the case manager,have to rely on a corporate strategic approachto youth justice, where senior managersacross different agenciesagree that in some casesthe case managermay have to challenge the practice of other professionals and agencies. Such practice, if implemented,is likely to test the extent of positive multi-agencyworking.

Resourcesand staffing

"One thing that would really help us in working with young people who offendin some

respects,is havingfully staffedchildren andfamily social work teams."

The decisionof Falkirk Councilto focuson the childrenand familiessocial work teamsas the main providers of servicesfor young people who offend may addressone of the issues that becwne central to discussionof working practicesduring the research,that of resources.

While there were various views about who held statutory orders and case management,a

271 commonthread referred to by children and families social workers, and recognisedby other professionals,was resourcing issues, both financial and staffing. Emerging during the fieldwork, this issue reflecteda nationwide staff shortagein social work at the time. As the national recruitmentcrisis deepenedover the period, it becameclear that many respondents were particularly concernedabout the impact this was having, or could have,on the ability of agenciesto deliver services to young people. At the time of interviews, neighbouring authorities were offering 'golden hellos' to new workers and enhancedsalary packagesto existing staff. While children and families serviceswere at the forefront in expressingthese concerns, other agencies also had a clear insight into how difficult the situation was becomingfor front line childrenand families services.

For many children and families staff, even though they believed that the formation of youth justice teams and the provision of improved services for young people who offend was generally a positive development,the allocation of increasedfunding and focus on youth offending caused some dissonance in their thoughts. As one social work manager commented,"Connect camealong and initially it attracted experiencedworkers as well, and it's about Youre losing that worker." There were clear concernsthat following this initial movementof children and families staff to the youth justice projects, ftu-therexpansion of dspecialist'youth justice serviceswould have a negative impact on front line services.The following commentsclearly highlighted someof the concernsapparent for staff.

"I wouldwish that as muchtime andfocus was put on theother side, the childrenand

families, the kind of care and protection issues, becauseI can see that a lot of my

colleaguesare moving to work with the youth justice side of things, and they're more

interested.I think that theyfeel that they've got more support, you know the training,

272 the support,I think the workloadsas well. I meana lot of my colleaguesin the children

andfamilies teams all makejokes, about you know if you're in Freagarrach you get

like three kids to work with. And you're talking about workersin the area teamswhove

got maybe 35-40 cases. They might not be live at one time but it's a hell of a

The I it is have do responsibility... way see going that they're going to to somethingto

help the care and protection side of things becauseBarnardo's, workingfor Connect,a

lot of my colleagues are speaking about wanting to do that becauseof the good

working environmentand the supportandjob satisfaction."

It hasbeen suggestedthat often when moneyis madeavailable to oneproject or areaof work, other areas,especially statutory ones, lose out (Bailey & Williams 2000). While there is no suggestionthat money was being moved from core childcare servicesto youth justice in

Falkirk, workers' perceptionswere formed by the injection of cash to servicesfollowing the

Youth Crime Review. As a number of Connect staff noted, it was not receivedpositively by social workers, when they were provided with new laptops and access to training and development,resources that were not availableto children and families teams.

Of the children and family social workers interviewed all expressedthe needto work with a young person on all their presenting problems, but were clear that time constraints often meantthat young peoplewho offend did not always receive the attentionthey should. Such a view wassupported by oneof thelegal professionals who suggestedthat:

"As far as the local authority goes, I think it's about the number of casesthe social

worker has to carry, that they don't have the time, they can't possibly devotethe time

that the voluntary sector can devote."

273 Thesefeelings, while not leading to direct conflict betweenchildren and families and youth justice project staff, may be the sourceof increaseddisagreements in the future if the issueis not addressed,although the new model of provision with increasedstaffing and funding to areateams should help to alleviate any problems. Youth justice project staff were aware of this situation, acknowledgingthat they were in a privileged position regarding funding and staffing,their ability to gate-keepthe serviceand having:

"... time and spaceto do the work, I think in a lot of ways it's not that the workershere

have skills that other social workers don't have, becausewe've all done the same

training. It's thefact that we've beengiven time and opportunity to developexpertise in

a certain area, and I think having small caseloadswhere you havetime to plan sessions

and,you know, think things through and reflect on sessions."

Related to the issue of resources is the wider question about the nature of the work undertaken by children and families social workers. As one member of Connect staff indicated, "ifyou are in a servicewhere your job is defined by what other people don't do, basically you know I think that could be very irritating. " Children and families staff expressedsimilar sentimentswith oneworker suggesting:

"We'refirefighting constantly,I don't havethe time or whatever,to go and do work

with young people that I would love to be able to do, group work or whatever.We don't

havethe time to do that, we seemto be, it's crisis interventionstuffall the time. "

274 The final comment on this issue is left to this children and families managerwho voiced widespreadconcerns that:

".. too much has been hived awayfrom social workersalready in children andfamilies

teams.So what gets hived away is all this kind of specialist stuff like you know like

criminaIjustice type work, like youthjustice. In the past we'd hived off child protection

and we've brought it back in again, children with disabilities and all this sort of stuff.

Soyou kind of askyoursetf what are children andfamilies workers left with then, and it

tends to be left with nobody makes a positive decision that children and families

workers are very good at doing this and this is what they'll do. It's kind of like well

take this away and we'll take that and children andfamilies workersarejust left. And I

meanall the crisis in children andfamilies at the minutenationally is almost indicative

of a policy without any decentstrategy and to hive off bits of workfrom children and

families workersand leave the core serviceto grind on with fewer andjewer workers."

COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SHARING

One of the key factors for success,or major challenge,for multi-agencyworking is the issue of informationsharing and communicationbetween the variousagencies involved in the partnerships(Atkinson et al. 2002). As thesefactors have also been highlighted as one of the reasonsfor promoting multi-agencyworking, communicationis associatedwith the establishment,success and failure of partnerships.A communicationsstrategy was identified as a key part of the National Standardsfor Youth Justice(Scottish Executive 2002c) and all youth justice strategygroups are expectedto have in place thesestrategies as a key indicator for their perfonnance.

275 Information generationand communicationis a vital requirementof evidencedbased policy and practice as it helps to develop a cumulative knowledgebase (Davies and Nutley 2002) and forms a key part of knowledgemanagement in organisations(Nutley et al.2004). Nutley

et al describeknowledge management as a relatively new discoursethat seeksto understand

the processesof knowledgeacquisition and disseminationfor the benefit of an organisation,

and they believe that it may prove to be increasingly important in the public sector.Sharing

information between agenciesinvolves the exchangeof knowledge, whether professional

and/or data about individuals, and has been an areaof conflict identified in much previous

research(Crawford 1997).

A particular areaof conflict and concemhas been that of confldentiality (Pearsonet al. 1992).

It has beensuggested that "problems of confidentiality aboundin multi-agencyworking, with

different agenciesconstructing and working by different conceptionsof 'confidentiality

(Sampson et al 1988:483). Falkirk was no different in this respect, with a number of

respondentsfrom various agencies alluding to the fact that any difficulty in obtaining

infonnation was linked to issuesof confidentiality, or more precisely individual perceptions

aboutconfidentiality. As oneFreagarrach worker noted:

"There's always the Data Protection Act stuff and how much you can reasonably

share.And I thinkthere is alwaysthat at the backofpeople's minds, and is it OK to be

giving out this information. "

A legal professional also suggestedthat there were always concerns about "shafing

informationtoo widely," althoughit was addedthat concernsabout data protectionwere

276 often overstated when working with vulnerable and troublesome young people. These

thoughts of a criminal justice worker identify the vagariesof information sharing and how much it differs betweenindividuals and agencies:

"I've found that it vaties. Some places are more amenable to the exchange of

information and are more trusting that you will treat it confidentially. I meanto me the

information, as long as it's going betweenagencies who have a confidentiality clause

within them,you know as long as it's going betweenthose agenciesand not outwith,

then I think the confidentiality is maintained. Confidentiality is a sort of misnomer

anyway, its more a sensitivity to information rather than confidentiality, and I think

that we need to clarify what information actually is legally confidential, medical

information and suchlike. And the limits to confidentiality."

As a Freagarrachworker also suggested,these various experiencesmay be dueto the fact that

information sharing "varies from person to person and again from week to week " Many

respondentsfrom a variety of agenciespointed to the fact that individual relationshipswith

other professionalsfacilitated the sharing of information, agreeing with the views of this

Connectworker who suggestedthat "I think it comesto individuals really, Ifound in different

settingsthat I've beenin it variesfrom person to person."A legal professionalalso indicated

that the successof information sharing in Falkirk was "the ahility here to make good

personal contact at the early stage with all the right people" which supportedthe view,

mentionedearlier, that Falkirk workedreasonably well dueto its manageablesize.

While there were various views about sharing sensitivedata only one person gave a specific

example of a social work team failing to share information because they were not a

277 'professional' (social worker) themselves.Alternatively, the same team were held up by

anotherrespondent as a good exampleof agenciesbeing willing to shareinfonnation. As in many aspectsof the research,definitive perceptionswere difficult to identify and individual

experiencesvaried greatly.

The relationshipaspect of information sharing in Falkirk cannotbe underestimatedas on an

individual level a majority of respondentsfelt that there were few problems, either in

obtaining information about young people, or keeping other professionalsinformed of a

young person's progress.This was especially true of information sharing betweenConnect

and Freagarrachand the local social work teams. "I think they're probably quite good at feeding back to the worker" and "they're very good at putting casenotes and e-mailing you

and contacting you by phone," were typical commentsabout youth justice staff informing

social workers of developments.

These individual and informal contacts have been found to be prevalent in multi-agency

crime prevention strategiesas a way of progressingpractice (Pearsonet al 1992; Crawford

and Jones1995). However, it hasbeen suggestedthat they may lead to problems concerning

the reasonsand value baseson which information is sharedand issuesregarding differential

power relationships(Crawford and Jones1995). It would appearthis informal contact can be

both positive andnegative as:

"Informal systemsof inter-agencyworking are risky encounterswhich can endanger

important confildentialitiesand might even sometimesconstitute a threat to civil

liberties. On the other hand, more informal andfluid systemsof inter-agencyrelations

278 seemto offer a more workable basisfor communicationand negotiation". (Pearsonet

al 1992:64-65)

The sharingof information about individuals was, on the whole, seenas a positive aspectof the partnershiparrangements in Falkirk and the introduction of the YJRG appearsto have enhanced this aspect. Most information exchange between the various agencies was completed over the phone or, if more formal methods were required, through reports and memos. The use of information technology for sharing information was not widespread beyond e-mail. However, IT was not the panaceato information sharing in Falkirk as each

agencydid not have accessto other databasesand, within social work, criminal justice staff

could not accesschildren and families information systems.They remain two independent

systemswith no accessacross the criminal justice / children and fwnily interface, although

the role of Connect as an interface project was strengthenedwhen their staff, after much

discussion,received access to both SySteMS.114

While there was a consensusthat sharing personal information was positive in Falkirk, it

became clear there was a disparity between this and issues of communication regarding

strategyand disseminationof monitoring and evaluationinformation. Perceptionsof effective

information sharing were contrastedwith the concern expressedabout the problems faced

with communication. In this respect information sharing was identified as specific

information about young people, while communication was the sharing of strategic

information,policy objectives,overall effectiveness, aims and obj ectivesand the contentof

programmeswithin the youth justice projects.

"' Freagarrachhad no direct access to eithernot being a 'localauthority' service.

279 Concern was raised about vertical communication from strategy level, through middle managementto front line staff. While respondentsat strategiclevel were positive about the amountof contactwith other managers,and practitioners had few problemswith information sharing, there was an impression of a communication gap between the levels. Within the operationalmulti-agency networks especially there were mixed views about the amount of communication,evidenced by concern about the nature of the interventions delivered by

Connect and Freagarrach;the overall effectivenessof the youth justice projects; what the youth justice projects actually did; what the strategicpolicy was; communicationin general from the strategic groups; advertising of services; and how information is in fact communicated.

Where information sharing and communication was felt to have improved was in Connect, the multi-professionalteam. The various professionalswere in one team, all working to the samecouncil guidelineson confidentiality etc. and having regular discussionsand meetings.

The employmentof Social Work andEducation Liaison Officers at the Reporter's office was also felt to have improved communication and information sharing between the various agencies.In both instancesthe increasedproximity of professionalsin the multi-professional team and in the sameoffice appearedto improve all aspectsof communication.Proximity anddaily face to face contact would seemto securethe most improvementin communication and information sharing in partnershipworking. Even if disagreementsand conflict arisesit canbe addressedmore readily when the different professionals are in thesame building.

In relation to feeding back aggregateinfonnation about how effective serviceshad been, another Connect worker acknowledged that "communication has been pretty poor sometimes." Other respondents,especially social workers, were clear that in terms of

280 researchfeedback there was "not a lot" of information abouthow successfulthe projectshad been. It was also mentionedby Connect staff and social workers that the format in which information was delivered neededto be addressed,echoing the findings of Knott (2004) that practitioners do not have accessto researchin a fonnat that they can use or digest. The disseminationof researchfindings has been found to be a key ingredientin the advancement of an evidence-based approachto practice (Macdonald 1999) and was in Falkirk largely absent.

Panel members reported that most information about services was gathered through attendance at training events. It was suggested that if the training did not exist communicationwas such that it would have been very difficult to obtain information about what the various projects actually did with young people. However, the panel members thought that information sharing betweenthe various projects had improved. It was felt that agenciesactually talked to eachother, especially at the time of a Social BackgroundReport being prepared. Panel memberssuggested that reports included different details, whereas previously they containedsimilar information becauseno one agencyactually knew what the other agencieswere writing.

CONCLUSION

The presentresearch reconfirmed a consensusamongst professionals, expressed in the local youth crime audit (Falkirk Council 2003), that the various agenciesin local partnership arrangementswere working reasonably well together. The establishmentof Connect as a multi-professional team was widely perceived as a success.It was viewed as a natural

281 progression from previous arrangementsand beneficial for young people and other

professionalsseeking to accessoffence focussedservices.

For staff at Connect, establishing and developing a multi-professional team consisted of many challengesnot immediatelyapparent to partneragencies. Its developmentwas far from

smooth, but not unusual in terms of team learning and development.The strategic vision,

which initially led to the establishmentof Connect,was followed by a difficult processof

team developmentand bonding that is a feature of multi-professionalteams. The successof

Connect in evolving into a coherent project capable of contributing to local youth justice

provision came from a bottom-up approachand autonomousdevelopment, with strategic

support.It was clear that retention of professionaltitles rather than that of a generic 'project

worker' ensuredeach profession had a valuablecontribution to maketo teamdevelopment.

Blurring of roles and responsibilities is not always the key to effective multi-professional

working.

While social work representedthe line of managementresponsibility for Connect there was

no domineering profession (Molyneux 2001) and other professional views were not

marginalised, creating room for professional knowledge and views to inform team

development.The evidencesuggests that centralisedlegislation is not necessaryto develop

effective multi-professionalteams able to contribute to local multi-agencypolicy. The model

of working at Connectwas able to operateindependently of other multi-agencyarrangements

and did not rely on positive relations between different agenciesto provide personnel and

funding for the project. This further enhancedtearn cohesionand, togetherwith the absence

of prescriptive guidelines,allowed a commitmentto the project andyoung people,rather than

to other agencieslike social work or community education.

282 The autonomousnature of the project, while not necessarilyenhancing relationships with other agencies,facilitated an increasedfocus on multi-agency working, not least the close

inter-agencypartnership with Freagarrachand the YJRG. The developmentof the YJRG as a responseto disagreementabout referrals to the youth justice projects was a constructive solution to an area of potentially increasing problems and was a clear example of conflict being embracedand addressedin a positive way. This inter-agencypartnership also adopteda consultationand training model (Atkinson et al 2002) which helpedin the disseminationof the 'what works' information to children and families social work teamswho were unfamiliar with the discourse.The YJRG also facilitated some developmentsin communication and

infonnation sharing,especially renewed access to police data.

However, the successof the Connect / Freagarrach/ YJRG inter-agencypartnership as a

working multi-agencyforum also presentedproblems. The YJRG becamea focus for youth justice in the complicated partnership arrangementsin Falkirk and perhaps reduced the

contribution of other agencies involved in integrated children's services. Lines of

communicationand responsibility were fragmentedwith little coordinationregarding the role

of each multi-agency strategy and working group. Models of multi-agency working

(Atkinson et al 2002; Payne2000), while conceptuallyuseful, provided little practical insight

into the complexities of multi-agency arrangementsand the various levels of formal and

informalarrangements. The myriadof agenciesincluded in youthjustice partnershipsat all

levels of organisations,with varying degreesof formality, varying degreesof communication

and varying degreesof knowledge and understandingmay preclude any 'workable'

conceptualmodels. The evidencesuggests that identifying multi-agency groups as discrete

283 models, with specific roles, may be problematic in the complicated policy area of youth justice.

The partnershipmodel that is most likely to provide effective outcomesfor young people,is case managementat the operational level. Well establishedcase managementprocedures were largely absentin Falkirk, leading to some young people having too many professionals involved, trying to make too many decisions, with little coordination and the potential for duplication. In this respectmulti-agcncy working, with variable case managementpractice, increasedduplication rather than reducing it and caused confusion for professionalsand young people. Perhaps the focus should have been centred on operational youth justice provision initially, rather than on strategicyouth justice teaxnswhich were viewed as being remotefrom operational issues.

The proposednew youth justice model, with increasedfocus on the children and families social work temns, should reinforce their role as the focus for young people involved in offending behaviour and addressmany of the case managementand responsibility issues.

Retaining youth justice in mainstream children and families provision was a positive decision, if not surprising given the views expressedin interviews by social workers about statutoryresponsibility. If successfulin termsof meetingNational Standardsit may provide a positive model of working that retains the essentialethos of the Kilbrandon principles. There is no reasonwhy the multi-agencyarrangements that have developedin Falkirk cannot continueto developin a frameworkthat retainsa child centredfocus in genericteams, referringto 'specialist'youth justice projectsonly whennecessary and as a last resort.As pitts (2003) indicated, the coTpoTatistagenda is not synonymouswith any one theoTetical model for addressingoffending by young people.

284 The most prominent factor in promoting positive multi-agencyworking was the belief that

individual relationships were the key to successful partnerships. This indicates that

independentof governmentdirectives and strategic guidelines,if professionalsand service users do not establishpositive working relationships partnershipsare unlikely to succeed.

These relationships are more than merely working in the same network or team, it is the

ability to transcend differences of opinion, values and beliefs and relate to people, not

aggregatesand statistics.As in many areasof social work, the value of personalrelationships

cannotbe underestimatedand should continue to be a focus for improved services.

Overall in Falkirk there was a complex depiction of staff interacting in varying ways at

different levels of multi-agency arrangementsby bringing their own professional and

personalexperiences to their roles, similar to what Crosset al (2003) found in their study in

Wales. Such practicereflected the complex natureof the behaviour and social circumstances

of young peoplethey were working with and the complex social processesinvolved in multi-

agency working. These findings regarding multi-agency working reflect the diversity of

opinions identified in ChapterSix, and the dissonancecaused by the 'new order,' in Scotland

identified in Chapter Seven. Taken together they indicate a theoretical, conceptual and

practical nightmarefor a corporatistagenda seeking to standardiseservices.

For partnershipworking to be successfuleach partner has to be clearof its rolesin achieving

a sharedobjective (Chapman 1998; Hewitt et al 2004).However, partnership working is a

complicatedbusiness (Scottish Executive 2002h) and, as indicated,different opinionsand

interpretationof policy andguidelines will complicatethe achievementof sharedobjectives.

The acceptanceof diverseprofessional opinions and, at times,conflicting objectives may be

285 the reality in partnershipworking and reflect the true natureof working together.While these can be assuagedto a certain extent in the searchfor more effective servicestheir elimination may be a utopian dream and not one that promotes independentthinking and innovative, individualised responses.Standardisation of services does not reflect local and individual circumstancesand an increaseddiscretion of the various professionalsinvolved with young people should be actively promoted to recognisediversity. This does not negate working together,or consistencyof approaches,it doesnegate any platitudinousconsensus to achieve a corporatistagenda propagated by central governmentintent on achieving effectivenessand efficiency through the managementof peopleand aggregates.

The solution to obtaining a sharedobjective and consensusin England and Wales was the formation of one centralisedbody, the Youth JusticeBoard, to overseenational priorities for youth justice. A primary aim and sharedobjective helpedto easethe challengesinherent in a complex area of social policy, reducing it to a simple matter of reducing offending. In

Scotland,care is required at the local and national level to ensurethat the complex aetiology of youth offending and the complicatednature of partnershipworking, including occasional conflict,does not leadto a situationwhere the resolutionis a separateyouth justice system and strategic fi-ameworkwhere all agencieshave the major aim of reducing offending. The exampleof Falkirk, despitesome problems and far from being perfect, provides evidencethat multi-agency working can be promoted from the bottom-up (with strategic support), with servicesthat areacceptable to serviceusers while encompassingthe government's corporatist aims.

286 CHAPTER NINE

CONCLUSIONS

This concludingchapter discusses the overall findings of the research,not only in relation to youthjustice policy in Falkirk, but the wider nationalimplications of promoting multi-agency partnershipsto addressoffending behaviour by young people. The findings are examinedas part of the paradigm shift in youth justice provision towards implementation of a 'what works' agenda,with a focus on monitoring and evaluation.The question is raised whether this paradigmshift representsa move away from a broadly welfare approachin Scotlandthat hasprovided the theoreticalframework for young peoplewho offend for the last thirty years.

Prior to the commencementof the research,Falkirk had demonstrateda commitment to multi-agency working with young people involved in, or at risk of, offending behaviour

(Lobley et al 2001; McIvor and Moodie 2002). The establishmentin 2001 of Connect,as a multi-professionalteam, indicated that Falkirk Council was committed to innovative youth justice provision to meet the policy guidelinesof the Scottish Executive.The part funding of the current research also indicated that Falkirk were enthusiasticabout evidencing their commitment to, and gaining a greater understandingof, the impact that multi-professional working had on youth justice provision.

As with socialwork servicesfor youngpeople in troubleelsewhere in theUK, Falkirk faced, and will continueto face,tremendous challenge and change(Goldson 2000a; Horwath and

Morrison2000). Falkirk's approachto the changeprocess ensured that practicedeveloped to meetboth thechallenges of nationalpolicy andthe complexity of needsfacing young people in trouble. Embracinginitially a transformationalconcept of change(Iles and Sutherland

287 2001), involving a shift in the assumptionsabout methodsof working with young people, allowed Falkirk to accommodatethe increased focus on evidence-basedpractice and corporatistgovernance. As national and local strategyevolved, and in responseto policy and researchdevelopments, change became more developmental.Encompassing a developmental conceptof change,rather than a static organisationalchange model adoptedfrom commerce

(Pettigrew et al 1988), allowed the wider theoretical context of youth justice interventions

(including child centred,relationship and welfare issues)to influence some of the changes, rather than a centralised,more punitive agendainfluenced by political, public and media attitudes.

In this arena of constant new initiatives and policy it is perhapsnot surprising that the developmentof a multi-professionalteam, and wider multi-agencyarrangements, has elicited both positive andnegative perceptions and experiences as describedin this thesis.Following the actionresearch aspect of the casestudy Falkirk Council implementedongoing changesas the researchevolved and many of the issuesraised have, at the time of writing, begun to be addressed.How Falkirk addressesthe remaindermay provide an indication of the extent to which a corporatist,managerial agenda has influenced serviceprovision.

MULTI-PROFESSIONAL TEAM

The establishmentof Connect as a multi-professional team in 2001 was innovative in

Scotlandat thetime with respectto therange of differentprofessionals in onetemn, based in the samebuilding and managedby one manager,with managerialresponsibility within the socialwork department.Locating a youthjustice teamin socialwork emphasisesthe wider welfare andrelationship aspects of the work over the morepunitive corporatistapproach to

288 service provision, although the tension between the two (Mair 2004) is becoming more apparent.Today, Connectremains one of the most professionallydiverse youth justice teams in Scotlandand, togetherwith its partneragencies in Falkirk, has embracedthe multi-agency approachin addressingthe issueof youth offending.

There was little doubt that the establishmentand developmentof a multi-professionalyouth justice tearn was a step into the unknown for nearly all those involved, reflected by the problemsand barriers that were encountered,especially in the first 12-18months of the team.

While the developmentaland learning processesof the team were those identified by previous research(Tuckman 1965;Dechant et al 1973),within the context of Scottish youth justice it was uncharted territory. Any beliefs that may have existed about immediate beneficial results of multi-professionalteam working were soon dispelled as the realities of developinga new team in an ever-changingpolicy environmentbecame apparent. Working togetheras a cohesiveteam involved a great deal of hard work, over a period of three years, in building and sustainingrelationships, accepting different value basesand professional knowledge and engagingin constructivedialogue and conflict about roles. Discussionabout the role of the project in providing programmeswas particularly prominent and a debatethat was returnedto throughoutthe period of the research.

The cycle of team developmentwill continue because,unlike a uni disciplinary team, the multi-professionalteam doesnot havethe luxury of sharedprofessional backgrounds and values.The relative stability of Connect,achieved during the period of the fieldwork following a disruptedfirst eighteenmonths, was interruptedtowards the end of the research as again team membersmoved on and new posts were advertised.As new professionalsjoin the team, bringing an increasing mix of personal and professional skills, renewed debates

289 may follow, that will hopefully develop the team further. The evolutionary nature of the

project may mean that its position in local youth justice policy, and the role of various professionalsin the team,will once againbe subjectto much debateas new membersseek to

asserttheir position in a dynamic,evolving multi-professionalteam.

The key point at which the team achieved'adulthood' was the team members identifying

themselvesas uniqueprofessionals with specific skills to contribute.The blurring of roles and

sharing of responsibilities,often promoted in governmentdocuments as the goal of multi-

professionalworking (Payne2000), was not conduciveto effective team working. Retention

of professionaltitles rather than the title of generic 'project workers' was instrumentalin the

confidence that developed and demonstratedthat team cohesivenesscan prevail without

recourseto the blurring of title or roles. Professionalautonomy and multi-professionalteam

working are not incompatible and other jurisdictions should note that the present findings

question the efficacy of adopting a generic youth justice title and blurring the professional

boundaries.

While the multi-professional team evolved there was an expectation, from local strategy

groups and operational social work teams, that Connect would deliver an increasingly

transparentservice, to 'prove' the efficacy of a multi-professionalteam approach,following

the injection of increasedfunding. While Connect developedstructured interventions, based

on evidenceof 'what works' with young people and in collaborationwith other services,the

project did struggle in providing 'programmes' of intervention that did not merely reflect

social work teamprovision.

290 The difficulty in developing'programmes' was due to the challengesof establishinga multi- professionalteam and reconciling a 'programme' approachwithin a framework of treating young people as individuals with specific needs.Maintaining a focus on the needs of the young peoplewas a priority for membersof the teamwho struggledto reconcilethe demands of providing an 'effective' service,which was ultimately measuredby reoffendingrates, with the welfare of young people and forming positive relationships.The dissonancethis caused was evident within the team, and reflected the broader debateabout how best to work with young people involved in offending behaviour. While Connect adoptedan evidence-based approachand were developing 'programmes',how compatiblethis was with the established welfare approach of the Scottish system was constantly questioned by team members.

Endeavouring to reconcile these issues Connect strived to develop individualised

'programmes' that were not all focussedon offending behaviour.These ongoing debatesare likely to be reflectedin other areasas the 'what works' agendais implemented,and should be viewed as important and necessaryas informed professionaldiscussions are relevant to the developmentof services.

MULTI-AGENCY WORIUNG

While Connectwas the focusof this thesis,and togetherwith Freagarrachand the Youth

JusticeReferral Group the centralpoint for youthjustice provisionin the community,they wereonly part of Falkirk Council'sresponse to the2000 Youth CrimeReview. The children and familiessocial work teamswere, and remain,the primary serviceprovider for young peoplein needof careand protection, or involvedin offendingbehaviour in Falkirk.This has recentlybeen reiterated by confirmationthat additionalsocial work posts,funded by youth crime money,will be createdin areateams. This proposednew model shouldreinforce a

291 commitment to a broaderwelfare approach,with the youth justice projects merely being a part of wider children's services.How central a part may depend on threshold criteria for entry into the youth justice services and ultimately professional views on the most appropriatetheoretical approaches to working with young people.

The establishmentof Connectwas instrumentalin developingwider multi-agencyworking in

Falkirk, most obviously as part of the inter-agencypartnership with Freagarrachand the

YJRG. This collaboration facilitated a more co-ordinatedapproach to youth justice with, in theory, responsibility for co-ordinating and delivering servicesto young people remaining with the social work teams.

The introduction of the YJRG was viewed by referrers and project staff as a significant improvement in the referral process. However, anxiety remained about its net widening potential due to the variable threshold for accessand the statusof the information that entry decisionswere basedon. If the YJRG remainsas a centralreferral point only for Connectand

Freagarrach,a higher thresholdfor referral will reducethe possibility of bringing more young peopleunder a youthjustice remit. In this respectstandardised assessments can be usedto screen out young people from youth justice services, rather than as a justification for intervention.

Alternatively, the successof the YJRG in coordinating resourcesfor young people could be extendedto other agencies.Broadening the remit of the YJRG would facilitate a tiered systemto allow non-justicediversionary services for youngpeople who are not identifiedas high risk or persistent. Diverting most young people away fi-om Connect and Freagarrach would ensurethey remainprojects for youngpeople at higherrisk, providing interventions

292 focussedon criminogenic need, and diverting them from the risk of custody and / or entry into the adult system.If the YJRG adoptsa tiered model, considerationshould be given to imposing a commitment that case managersmust make (or at least actively consider) a referralto the YJRG if offending becomespersistent. At presentno suchdirectives exist, with the result that young people identified as persistent, and with high needs, may not be receivingappropriate services.

Key for youthjustice in Falkirk will be for Connectto clearly identify itself as a youth justice project providing 'effective interventions' (McIvor 2005) focussedon offending behaviour for those in most need. While flexibility was perceived, and can be, a positive aspectof service provision, if Connect is advertised as a 'specialist' youth justice project while continuing to provide early intervention services to 'nip offending in the bud', or a preventativeservice addressing wider needs,net wideningwill occur. An agreedaccess threshold for the YJRG remains unresolvedand any decisionwill continue to be an areaof theoretical, ethical and legal discussion, in addition to the practical aspects of implementation.Again, the experiencesof Falkirk and the findings of this research,provide a referencepoint for odier areasin Scotland designing servicesto meet the needs of young people and the difficulties inherent in obtaining an appropriatebalance between rights, care andcontrol.

The development of the Connect, Freagarrachand YJRG inter-agencypartnership at the operationallevel demonstratedthat successfulmulti-agency working doesnot necessarily emanate from strategic groupings. VVIfile strategic and managerial decisions were instrumentalin establishingthe projectsand providing the funding,working arrangements subsequentlydeveloped fi-om the operational level. This bottom-up approachwas possible

293 becausethere were no concernsabout conditions attachedto, or the consistencyof, funding, which has been evident in Englandand Wales (Burnett and Appleton 2004). This resulted in the relatively autonomousdevelopment of the Connectproject that may have mitigated to someextent the top-down managerialist agenda.

Linked to the above point the multi-agency partnershipsin Falkirk were operating on multiple levels andwith varying degreesof integrationand formality. The complex natureof the partnershiparrangements, the numbersof strategic groups,and communicationbarriers, resultedin little evidenceof a 'partnershiparrangement' that encompassedall agenciesto the samedegree. This restricteda corporateapproach to youth justice that was clearly located in wider children's servicesand many practitioners were only aware of those strategy groups with 'youth justice' responsibility.

Despite,or perhapsbecause of, the numberof strategygroups and communicationchallenges there was no evidenceof major corporate conflict. While conflict at times was recognised, there was a belief that it was manageable.It was unclear whether there was a reluctanceto acknowledgeconflict, or there was a genuine belief that there was little disagreement.No evidence emerged to support either an overall optimistic benevolent, or a pessimistic conspiracy, view (Crawford 1997) of the partnership arrangements.Collaboration was acceptedas a facet of modemyouth justice provisionthat neededto be incorporatedinto policy and practice.While this helpedpartnership working, it precludeda critical perspective of some aspectsof multi-agencyworking, including occasionalduplication and the difficulties of operationalcase management.

294 A major factor that emergedfrom both relations within the multi-professionalteam and the wider multi-agency arrangementswas that working together would only be successfulif those concerned could develop positive working relationships. Good relationships and

4gettingon together' were independentof roles and, crucially, of the formation of formal multi-agencyarrangements. Legislating for the membershipof youth offending teamslike in

England and Wales, or determining the composition of strategy groups, doesnot guarantee good working relationships.As is increasinglyemerging in the 'what works' and desistance literature relating to personalchange (Burnett 2004; Batchelor and NcNeill 2005; McIvor

2004; Robinson 2005; Robinson and Dignan 2004), the relationships fortned between individuals in partnershiparrangements are likely to be a crucial factor in their success,rather than the fact partnershiparrangements merely exist.

Developing communication systems whereby accessand feedback is available throughout and betweenthe levels of the multi-agencynetworks, so that strategicand operationalteams and personnelhave a clearer understandingof the issuesfacing staff at all levels, is crucial.

Without such communication duplication can result, evidenced in Falkirk by some respondentsbelieving the programmesof Connect and Freagarrachwere often duplicating other services.Within Falkirk the role of the Youth Justice StrategyGroup should be central to this effectivecommunication. To dateits functionhas been unclear, and impact marginal.

The rebrandingof the local strategy group will be crucial in creating a clear focal point and conduitfor informationfor local youthjustice policy. However,in strengtheningthe profile of the local Youth Justice Strategy Group, the role of the Children's Commission Strategy

Groupneeds to be emphasisedas the primary focusfor all children'sservices. Otherwise, policy runs the risk of being focussedon youth justice, rather than it being a part of a wider strategy.

295 Underpinning the multi-agency developmentsin Falkirk was a committed and professional workforce believing in a child centred, broadly welfare based approachto young people involved in offending behaviour. This support for the present system did not, however, preclude some dissatisfaction about its ability to addressthe behaviour of young people identified as persistent offenders. There was some trepidation, from a cross section of professionals, that failure to address persistent offending may result in future policy increasinglybeing influenced by a more punitive agendathat has been evident in England and Wales. "The influenceof the big neighbour to the South" (Stem 2005) was a concem to many people. The influence of otherjurisdictions, often perceivedas less child centred,can be avoidedif theevidence base from Scotlandcan demonstratesuccess (however measured) in interventionswith young people. The findings of this researchhave implication across

Scotland,and in otherjurisdictions, in relation to the benefitsof developinglocalised services without recourseto an over centralisedyouth justice system.

NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

While there are specific implications of the researchfor local policy and practicemany of the issuesare fundmnentalto the presentyouth justice discoursein Scotland.The positiveand negativeaspects of the Falkirk model haveboth practicaland theoreticalimplications for wider youth justice policy. The ScottishExecutive emphasis on preventionand early intervention, in addition to a focus on persistent young offenders, fl=atens to locate all young people who offend, or are 'at risk' of offending, under the auspicesof youth justice policy. The wider theoretical debate about the most effective methods for working with young people suggeststhat prevention and early intervention 'youth justice' servicesrun the

296 risk of widening the net for young people and labelling them as 'offenders first' (Muncie

2004) andpotentially underminingthe 'children first' principles of the HearingsSystem.

It is neither likely, nor desirable,that the model of partnershipworking adoptedin Falkirk can be transferredto other areasof Scotland.Local circumstancesshould ultimately dictate the level of collaborative partnershipsrequired in each local authority area and clearly for someareas multi-professional operational teams will not be the preferred option. Indeed,the different models adoptedin the neighbouringauthorities under the Forth Valley Youth Justice

Strategy Group umbrella is evidence that a nationwide youth justice model of service delivery would be difficult to justify or sustain.In Englandand Wales,where there is a much more prescriptive and centralisedagenda for youth justice service delivery, each area has slightly different ways of working, evenwithin the Youth Offending Team model (seeCross et al 2003; Holdaway et al 2001).

Differing circumstancesof eachlocal authority areadoes not, however,preclude the sharing of good practice and learning from the experiencesof other areas.A youth justice network facilitated by the Criminal Justice Social Work Development Centre is aiding this process.

Similarly, the findings from the presentstudy will be of interest to authorities thinking of developing multi-professional youth justice teams, improving partnership working, or seekingconfirmation of their presentarrangements.

Falkirk has experienceda steep learning curve in relation to multi-professional teams and multi-agencyworking and there are many lessonsto be taken from the findings of this researchregarding future developments in Scotlandand ftu-therafield. Adoptionof someof the findings, including resolution of the issuesidentified as problematic, may enable youth

297 justice provision in Scotlandto provide elementsof the 'new orthodoxy' (Blagg and Smith

1989) promoted in the 1980s for IT teams. The Falkirk model can provide a '21" century

orthodoxy' of youth justice services, only as a 'last resort' and in collaboration with

mainstreamsocial work teams,where relationshipsbetween professionals and young people

and a focus on wider needs, are accepted as being as important as the provision of

programmes.Effective coordination with other agenciescan ensure preventive and early

interventionwork is provided by non-justiceservices to avoid the potential for net widening

(Blagg andSmith 1989).

The effective practice evidence supports interventions including a focus on offending

behaviour for those young people most at risk, but only in the context of wider social

circumstances,the importanceof relationships,and diversionfrom justice interventions

where possible (Lobley et al 2001; McLaren 2000; Batchelor and McNeill 2005; Whyte

2004a). This has been supportedby the views of most respondentsin this research.This

suggests that 'specialist' youth justice teams should be part of wider multi-agency

arrangements,rather than the focus for all young people who offend. A model similar to

Falkirk's, with children and families social work teams working in partnershipwith youth

justice projects located primarily in the social work department,has the potential to deliver

effective servicesthat promotesthis focus on child welfare, while addressingoffending

behaviouramongst other measures of success.These other measuresshould include a range

of social and welfare benefits promoting social inclusion, including improved health,

educationand employmentattainment, improved relations with family and friends and

protecting children (McNeill and Batchelor 2004; Farrall 2002; Worrall andMawby 2004).

298 A thread that permeatesmany aspectsof the researchis the role of case managersbeing crucial for forming and maintaining a stablerelationship with young peopleand co-ordinating serviceswhere required(Robinson 2005). In Falkirk there was evidenceof the youth justice projects adopting a 'de facto' casemanagement role, which again raised the possibility of welfare servicesbeing co-ordinatedand accessedthrough a justice pathway.Care is required acrossany jurisdiction to ensurethat increasedfunding and resourcesfor youth justice does not result in justice projectsbeing a focus for intervention, rather than as part of integrated children's services.

In most situations in Scotlandcase managers are likely to be social workers in the children and families areateams (Scottish Executive 2004d). On a national level considerationneeds to be given to clarifying the role of case managerand ensuring that one person is clearly identifiedas such. It is worth reiteratingat this point that themain issue is identifyinga case manager with appropriate responsibility and influence, not deciding on models of case management.The responsibility that comes with this role needs to be supported,through strategicnegotiation and cooperation,with assurancesthat the casemanager has authority to engageand challengeother professionalsregarding the delivery of servicesidentified in the action / care plan so that youth justice services do not become the default provider of services.If casemanagers are social workers they should make decisionsthat will retain, as far as possible,young people in broaderservices and demonstratea professionalcommitment to preventing an escalationinto justice services.Effective casemanagement to divert young people away from formal justice interventions is likely to represent one of the biggest challengesfor effective multi-agencyworking.

299 One of the most important findings in relation to multi-agencyworking is that attemptingto impose prescriptive strategic and operationalpartnerships from strategic groups may not be the most effective way of ensuringsuccessful multi-agency arrangements that engageyoung people and achieve the desired outcomes. In many respectsScottish Executive policy is allowing, at the moment, local areas,the periphery, to decide local strategiesand councils should consider adoptingthis approachwithin their boundaries.The evidence from Falkirk providessupport for the benefitsof this structureso that steeringand rowing (Crawford 1997;

Loader and Sparks 2002) are shared equally amongst all partners, and professional knowledgeand understandingcan have as much influence as managerialtheories. This was clearly evidencedby the fact that once the decision for a new project had been made, and funding madeavailable, many of the developmentswere driven by operationalmanagers and staff whose vision and commitment was as important as a clear strategicplan. It should be noted that potential barriersto effective multi-agencyworking cannotbe addressedsolely at a strategic level; all levels of an organisation need to be involved in decision making and change.

The important interface betweenall aspectsof multi-agencynetworks is at operationallevel, where daily contact with service users will ensurethe greatestimpact. Senior management

and strategicdecision making should be limited to a 'mandatefor renewal'allowing change

to generatefrom the periphery(Beer et al 1990).This mandateinvolves senior management and strategygroups providing the resourcesto facilitate change,while promoting some

degreeof autonomy at the operationallevel.

Beyond the benefits of the change models adopted in Falkirk, and the contribution multi-

professionalteams can make to partnershiparrangements, an important implication for youth

300 justice in Scotlandidentified by this researchis the beginningsof a divergencefrom a welfare based approachat a local level. While the experiencesof Falkirk have indicated that the establishmentof functioning multi-professionalyouth justice projects,and generally effective multi-agency partnerships,is possible without full recourseto 'delinquency management'

(Pitts 2005), there is evidence that the 'what works' managerial agenda is increasingly influential in decisionmaking. However, the interpretationof 'what works' at the practitioner level to include the influence of relationshipsand context of offending behaviour,and not to focus exclusively on reoffending as a measureof success,was evident and may mitigate the advanceof governmentled interpretationsof 'what works' evidence.However, evidenceof referrals to the youth justice projects with 'concerns' about offending behaviour for early intervention raisesthe possibility of services,however benign and 'welfare' oriented, being accessedthrough the justice route and widening the net.

A multi-agency approachto working with young people is not theoretically bound with a justice model (Pitts 2003). While the 'Third Way' political agendahas equated'joined up' working in youth justice with a punitive model (McLaughlin and Muncie 2000; Smith R

2003),the experienceof Falkirk suggestsalternative discourses for partnershipsare available.

But, with responsibility, systems management and 'offence focussed programmes' increasinglybeing a focus of Executivestrategy, and funding increasinglylikely to be linked to these developments(Scotsman 2005), care is neededto avoid a descentinto the

'responsibilisation' (Muncie and Hughes2002) of young people.Youth justice teaxns,Youth

Courts,Fast Track Hearingsand a focuson offendingprogrammes, supported by too narrow a definitionof 'what works', carry inherentrisks of perpetuatingthe 'ned' labellingof young peopleand focussingprimarily on their offendingbehaviour. Ultimately, the directionof futureScottish policy will be governedby standardsand guidelines,but will also dependon

301 individual perceptionsof the most appropriateand effective methodsfor working with young people.It is worth consideringthat in the languageof 'what works' the failure of the Scottish model has not been established,and a focus on children first doesnot precludeaddressing offending behaviourwhen necessary(Drakeford 2001; Goldson 2005b).

FUTURE RESEARCH

Future developmentsin Scotlandwill be subjectto their demonstrationof effectivenessand it will be incumbenton eachlocality to demonstratethis efficacy. This evidenceshould not be restrictedto the narrow confinesof quasi-experimental'what works' studieswhich can fail to encompassmany aspectsof young people's lives (Beresfordand Evans 1999; Gibbs 2001b;

Powell 2002). However, National Standardshave begun to establisha framework for youth justice provision and demonstration of effectiveness at meeting government targets in reducing offending and submitting reports on time will be required to meet the Standards.

The paradigm shift in youth justice in Scotland to evidence-basedpractice, multi-agency working, outputs and outcomesrequires time to establishwhat, and who, does and doesnot work and will requiremultiple methodsof enquiry.

Transferring the Falkirk model of youth justice provision to other local authority areasmay not be desirable.Just as 'programmes' tailored to the individual young person aremore likely to be effective,models of serviceprovision are bestsuited to local circumstances.The case study method adoptedfor this researchhas provided a rich descriptionof one local authority's developmentof multi-agencypartnerships. To identify the complexityof the approachesin eachlocal authority,future researchwill haveto take the form of single or multiple case studiesto fully appreciateand describelocal practice and emphasisethe

302 individual nature of the partnerships.Just as a 'one size fits all' approachis unlikely to be effective with young people, the sarnewill apply to local authorities. There is a need to explain why areaswith similar issuesbehave differently, achieve different outcomesand different degreesof success(Pettigrew 1988). Prescriptive models of change,practice or researchmethods are unlikely to teaseout thesedifferences. Flexibility in all theseissues will provide insight into the complexity of the lives of the young people involved in offending behaviour, the complex nature of the interventions aiming to changethis and the complex natureof the organisationalstructures and partnershipagreements in place.

Neverthelesssome aspectswill be transferableacross boundaries and some lessonscan be learnedfrom researchin other areas.Collaborative theory building (Batemanand Pitts 2005) involving multiple methodsof inquiry will ensure that the real question of what, who and where works will be disseminatednationally for the benefit of young people. The final measureof successacross Scotland may be reductionsin offendingbehaviour, but the increasedsocial inclusion of these young people, who are presently at risk fi-om exclusion throughpublic, media and political rhetoric, is paramount.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

The establishmentof Connect as a new multi-professional youth justice team achieved considerablesuccess in developing wider multi-agencyworking in Falkirk. An inter-agency partnershipwith Freagarrach,through the Youth JusticeReferral Group, was successfulin providingalternative provision for youngpeople that wasutilised by referrers,on thewhole well receivedand engagedyoung people. The inter-agencypartnership provided a central point of referencefor youthjustice provision and initial indicationssuggest that, in the short

303 term at least, they achieved some successat reducing the offending behaviour of young people attending the projects. How much this was due to the actual intervention of the projects or the combinedefforts of all the agenciesinvolved was more difficult to ascertain.

Much more detailedmonitoring and evaluation of all the interventionsare neededbefore any conclusion can be made as to which aspectsprovide the best outcomesfor young people, outcomesthat arenot solely basedon offending rates.

The youth justice projects were successfulin engagingwith young people at the interfaceof the Children's Hearingsand Criminal Justice Systemsby assimilating practice from a wide evidencebase into a model that attemptedto addressboth needs and deeds.Care will be requiredto ensurethat sucha 'hybrid' model doesnot representthe first step in a movement to a more punitive responsewith young people. Particular attention is necessaryto ensure ftuther adoption of 'what works' and an evidence-basedagenda includes a wide range of theoreticaland methodological enquiry, to avoid 'crossing the line' fi-om.welfare to justice by imperceptiblesteps, justified by a narrow focus on 'what works.'

The establishmentof multi-professionalteams and/or improved multi-agencynetworks is not a panaceato the perceived problems of youth justice in Scotland. It has the potential to increase accessto services for young people, but also to mute access through a justice pathway,rather than locating youth justice in fully fundedand integrated children's services.

The focusneeds to be on youthjustice teamsas partnersin wider services,not multi-agency arrangementsbeing part of youthjustice, with effectivecase manager and strategic decisions makingfocussed around the needsof thechild. On a widertheoretical note, care is neededto ensurethat the successof any multi-agency approachis not merely measuredin the narrow

304 tenns of reoffending as,by its very nature,partnership working should encouragea focus on other outcomes.

In Scotland,unlike Englandand Wales,there hasbeen no overly prescriptivecentral strategic

direction aboutthe natureof youthjustice teamsor provision, allowing local developmentsto

meet local conditions. This degree of flexibility should be capitalised on, and evidence

generated,to demonstratethat the unique Scottish approach(based broadly on a welfare /

educationmodel) can achievethe desiredresults when working with young people involved

in offending behaviour. Also, Scotland still retains the Children's Hearings System as a

diversion from formal court proceedingsand practicein the youthjustice projectswas, on the

whole,located around this. However,the increased funding of 'youthjustice' initiatives,even

within integrated children's services, increases the risk of wider services only being

adequatelyresourced and accessedthrough the youth justice pathway. There were the first

signsof this in Falkirk where social workers had referredto the Youth JusticeReferral Group

becausethey perceivedConnect and Freagarrachas having more resourcesto meet the needs

of young people. Scotland is at the interface in relation to youth justice provision; while a

move to evidence-basedpractice is welcomed(assuming a wider definition of 'evidence' dm

has been apparent),and can be supportedthrough effective multi-agency arrangements,the

tightropeof rights, care and control is slim and a move towardswelfare servicesbeing

accessedthrough youth justice may shift the balancetowards control. Restating the casefor

informalism,Goldson (2005b) has madeclear that all socialagencies should be adequately

resourcedto provide support to young people, diverting them from fomal youth justice

interventionsand ensuring that the central purpose of any intervention is the needs of the

child.

305 Scotlandis at an early stage in generatingits own researchbase for best practice. While its approachto young people in trouble is as an example of humane practice (Fraser 1995;

Muncie 2004; Smith R 2003) it is likely that 'evidence' of successacceptable to politicians and a wider audienceis required to halt a move to a more punitive, centralisedapproach, characterised by practice in England and Wales. It will require strong leadership, commitment and vision from all levels of local partnershipsin Scotland to develop, and evidence,effective, localised services. While a challenge, this researchdemonstrates it is possibleto work in partnershipat a local level andbegin to developmulti-agency services to meetthe needsof young peopleand establish systems that adhereto National Standards.

306 REFERENCES

Adams C (2000) 'Suspect data: arresting research' in King RD and Wincup E (eds) Doing Researchon Crime And JusticeOxford, Oxford University Press

AdamsGB and Ingersoll VH (1990) 'Culture, technicalrationality and organisationalculture' American Review of Public Administration 20(4) December,285-302 quoted in Dixon J, Kouzmin A and Korac-KakabadseNK (1998) 'Managerialism.- somethingold, something borrowed, little new: economicprescription versuseffective organizationalchange in public agencies'International Journal of Public SectorManageme 11(2/3), 164-187

Alder C and WundersitzJ (1994) 'New directions in juvenile justice reform in Australia' in Alder C andWundersitz J (eds)Family Conferencingand JuvenileJustice: The WLtyForward or MiElaced Qptimism Canberra,Australian Institute of Criminology

Amnesty International (1999) B2kq3dnRThe Young: Human Rights Violations Against Children in the US JusticeS3mtem www. amnestyusa.org/rightsforall/juvenile/report/juvenile-04. html

Andrews D (1995) 'The Psychology Of Criminal Conduct And Effective Treatment' in McGuire J (ed) What Works: ReducingReoffending- Guidelines From Researchand Practice Chichester,John Wiley andSons

Andrews DA and Bonta.J (1994) The PsyghologyOf Criminal ConductCincinati, Anderson cited in Andrews D (1995) 'The PsychologyOf Criminal Conduct And Effective Treatment' in McGuire J (ed) What Works: Reducing Reoffending- Guidelines From Researchand Practice Chichester,John Wiley and Sons

Andrews DA and Bonta JL (1996) LSI-R: The Level Of Service InvoLoa - Revised Toronto, Multi-Health SystemsInc

Andrews D, Zinger 1,Hoge R, Bonta J, GendreauP and Cullen F (1990) 'Does Correctional Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant And Psychologically Informed Meta-Analysis' Criminology 28(3), 369-404

Asquith S (1998) Children's Hearingsin an internationalcontext' in Lockyer A andStone FH (eds)Juvenile Justice in ScotlandA&T Clark, Edinburgh

Asquith S (2002) 'Justice, retribution and children' in Muncie J, HughesG and McLaughlin E (eds)Youth Justice:Critical ReadinggLondon, Sage

Asquith S, Buist M, LoughranN, MacAulay C and Montgomery M (1996) Children. Young PMle and Offending in ScotlandEdinburgh, The ScottishOffice

Asquith S and Docherty M (1999) 'Preventing offending by children and young people' in Scotlandin Duff P and Hutton N (eds)Criminal Justicein ScotlandAshgate, Aldershot

Atkinson M, Wilkin A, Stott A, Doherty P and Kinder K (2002) Multi-nency Working: A Detailed &Ldy Slough,National Foundationfor EducationalResearch Report 26

307 Audit Scotland (2000) Safe and Sound: A Study of Community Safety Partnershipsin ScotlandEdinburgh, Audit Scotland

Audit Scotland (2001) Youth Justice in Scotland: A Baseline RMort Edinburgh, Audit Scotland

Audit Scotland(2002) Dealing With Offending By Young Pe9pleEdinburgh, Audit Scotland

Avison (1997) in McKenzie G, Powell J and UsherR (eds) UnderstandingSocial Research: Pmpectives on Methodsand Practice London, Falmer

BBC (2003) 'Holyrood urged to protect 'neds' BBC News Scotland www.bbc. co. uk/l/hi/scotland/2964378. stm

Bailey R and Williams B (2000) Inter-agency PartnMhips in Youth Justice: hnlerngn"n the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Sheffield, University of Sheffield

Baker C (1997) 'Membership categorizationand interview accounts' in Silverman D (ed) Qualitative Research:Theoxy. Method andPractice London, Sage

Baker K (2004) 'Is Assetreally an assetT in Burnett R and RobertsC (eds) What Works in Probation and Youth Justice. Devel9ping Evidence-basedPractice Cullompton, Willan Publishing

Baker K, JonesS, RobertsC and Merrington S (2002) Validity and Reliability of ASSET: Findings From the First Two Yearsof Its Use London, Youth JusticeBoard

Bala N and Bromwich RJ (2002) 'An international perspectiveon youth justice' in Bala NMC, Hornick JP and Snyder HN (eds) Juvenile Justice Sy§teTns:An International Co1pparisonof Problemsand SolutionsToronto, Thompson

Bala N, Hornick JP and SnyderHN (2002) 'Conclusion: Trends in juvenile justice' in Bala NMC, Hornick JP and Snyder HN (eds) Juvenile Justice S3Lqtetns:An International Co!pparison of Problemsand Solutions Toronto, Thompson

Bamardo's (2002) FreagaffachProject Annual ReXort 2000-2001Scotland, Barnardo's

Barnardo's (2003) Freagggach- Stirling and Falkirk Annual ftort 2002-2003 Scotland, Barnardo's

Barnardo's (2004) Barnardo's Freagaffach Falkirk Annual Rqport 2003-2004 Scotland, Barnardo's

BarnesE (2004)'Crackdown on'neds' will requireextra fl2m' Scotlandon SmdaBy 20J un e http://news-scotsman. com/index. cfin? id=699482004

Barry M (2000)'The mentor/monitordebate in criminaljustice: Whatworks for offenders' British Journalof SocialWork 30,575-595

308 Barry M, BeatonK andMcIvor G (2002) Evaluationof the Glasp-owPartnershiR Communit Justiceand EmploymentProject Stirling, Social Work ResearchCentre

Barry M and McIvor (1999) Diversion from Prosecutionto Social Work and Other Service AgenciesEdinburgh, Scottish Executive Central ResearchUnit, ResearchFindings 37

Batchelor S and McNeill F (2005) 'The Young Person-WorkerRelationship' in BatemanT andPitts J (eds) RHP CgMpanionto Youth JusticeLyme Regis,Russell House Publishing

BatemanT andPitts J (2005) 'Conclusion: What the evidencetells us' in BatemanT and Pitts J (eds)Youth JusticeLyme Regis,Russell House Publishing

Becker H (1963) Outsiders:Studies in the Sociologyof DevianceNew York: Free Press

Beer M, EisenstatRA and SpectorB (1990) 'Why changeprograms don't producechange' Harvard BusinessReview November-December1990,15 8-166

Bell C, McCorman K and Store N (1995) Young Offenders: Law. Policy and Practice London, Sweetand Maxwell

BeresfordP and EvansC (1999) 'Researchnote: researchand empowerment'British Journal of Social Work 29(5), 671-673

Blagg H (2000) Shifting ParadigLnsor Just RearrangingDeckchairs? Multi-a-gency Work. Marginal Communitiesand Crime Prevention Paperpresented at the conferenceReducing Criminality: Partnershipsand Best Practice Perth, Australia 31 July and I August 2000 Australia

Blagg H, PearsonG, SampsonA, Smith D and StubbsP (1988) 'Inter-agency co-operation and; rhetoric and reality' in Hope T and Shaw M (eds) Communitiesand Crime Reduction London, HMSO, Home Office Researchand Planning Unit

Blagg H andSmith D (1989) Crime. Penal Policy and Social Work Harlow, Longman

Bottoms AE (1977) 'Reflections on the renaissanceof dangerousness'Howard Journal 16,2, 70-96

Bottoms A (2000) 'The relationshipbetween theory and researchin criminology' in King RD and Wincup E (eds) Doing Researchon Crime and JusticeOxford, Oxford University Press

Bottoms AE and StevensonS (1992) 'What went wrong? Criminal justice policy in England and Wales 1945-1970 in Downes D (ed) Unravelling Criminal Justice Basingstoke, Macmillan

Braithwaite J (1989) Crime. Shameand ReintegrationSydney, Cambridge University Press

BrantinghamPJ and Faust FL (1976) 'A conceptualmodel of crime prevention' Crime and Delingumc-_y22,130-46

309 Bright M, AsthanaA and Thompson L (2005) 'Welcome to asbonation' Qbservýr,p22,12 June

Brooks DR (2005) 'Restorativejustice in Scotland's youth justice system' in McGhee J, Mellon M and Whyte B (eds) Meeting Needs. Addressing Deeds- Working With Young PeopleWho OffendNCH Scotland

BroussineM and Wakefield R (1997) 'Quality Defined By Public ServiceUsers - The Case Of The Avon ProbationService' Public ServiceAnd ManagementJan-Mar, 27-34

Bryman A (2001) Social ResearchMethods Oxford, Oxford University Press

Buckland G and StevensA (2001) Review of Effective Practice with Young Offenders in Mainland University of Kent, EuropeEuropean Institute of Social Services

Buist M (2004) What Works with Children and Young PegpleInvolved in Crime? A Review of Scottish Literature Edinburgh, Criminal Justice Social Work Development Centre for Scotland

Buist M and Whyte B, (2004) International Evidence to Scotland's Children's Hearings Review: Decision Making and ServicesRelating to Children and Young PMle Involved in Offending Behaviour Edinburgh, Criminal Justice Social Work Development Centre for Scotland

Buhner M (1982) The Usesof Social ResearchLondon, Allen and Unwin

Burnett R (2000) 'Understandingcriminal careersthrough a seriesof in-depth interviews' Offender ProgramsBoo May/June4(l)

Burnett R (2004) 'One-to-oneways of promoting desistance:in searchof an evidencebase' in Burnett R and Roberts C (eds) What Works in Probationand Youth Justice Cullompton, Willan

Burnett R and Appleton C (2004) Joined 0 Youth Justice Lyine Regis, Russell House Publishing

Burnett R and RobertsC (2004) 'The emergenceand importanceof evidence-basedpractice in probation and youth justice' in Burnett R and RobertsC (eds) What Works in Probation andYouth JusticeCullompton, Willan

CantonR and Eadie T (2005) 'Enforcement' in BatemanT andPitts J (eds)RHP Cgmpanion to Youth JusticeLyme Regis,Russell House Publishing

ChapmanM (1998) Effective Partnmhp: p Workin Edinburgh,Scottish Office Central ResearchUnit

ChapmanT andHough M (1998) EvidencedBased Practice London, Home Office

Cheek J (2000) 'An untold story: Doing funded qualitative research' in Dentin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Handbookof QValitativeResearch London, Sage

310 CheetharnJ, Fuller R, McIvor G and Patch A (1992) Evaluating Social Work Effectiveness Buckingham,Open University Press

Claire C (2005) 'Boy of 15 is first to be fitted with a tag' Scotlandon Sund 5/6/05 http://news. scotsman. com/archive. cftn? =617042005

Clarke A (2001) 'Researchand the policy-making process' in Gilbert N (ed) Researching Social Life London Sage

Clarke J andNewman J (1997) The ManagerialState London, Sage

Clarke J, Pewits S and McLaughlin E (2000) (eds) New Managerialism New Welfare London, Sage

Clarke J, Pewits S and McLaughlin E (2000) 'Reinventing the welfare state' in Clarke J, Pewits S andMcLaughlin E (eds)New ManagerialismNew Welfare London, Sage

Cohen S (1973) Folk Devils andMoral Panics:The Creationof Moods and RockersLondon, Paladin

ColemanC and MonahanJ (1996) UnderstandingCrime Data MaidenheadOpen University Press

Cook G, Garish K and Clarke C (2001) 'Decision-making in teams:issues arising from two UK evaluations'Journal of Intgnrofessional Care 15(2), 141-151

Cornish DB andClarke RV (eds)(1986) The ReasoningCriminal Berlin, Springer-Verlag

Crawford A (1997) The Local Governance of Crime: AMeals to Communijy and PartnershipsOxford, ClarendonPress

Crawford A (2001) 'Joined up but fragmented:contradiction, ambiguity and ambivalenceat the heart of New Labour's 'Third Way' in MatthewsR and Pitts J (eds) Crime. Disorder and Communily S London, Routledge

Crawford A and JonesM (1995) 'Inter-agency co-operation and community based crime prevention' British Journalof Criminolo 35,1,17-33

CJSYMC (2004) Youth Justice EvaluationProject: Developing a Framework for Evaluation in Youth Justice in Scotland:Final RMort Universities of Edinburgh and Stirling, Criminal JusticeSocial Work DevelopmentCentre for Scotland

CrossB (1997)'Partnership in probation:The experience of two probationservices' Howard Journal36(l), 62-79

Cross N, Evans J andMinkes J (2003) 'Still children first? Developmentsin youth justice in Englandand Wales' Youth Justice2(3), 151-162

Davies M (2000) (ed) The Blackwell Encycl2gediaof Social Work Oxford, Blackwell

311 Davies H and Nutley S (2002) 'Evidence-basedpolicy and practice: moving from rhetoric to reality' DiscussionPgper 2 University of St Andrews,Research Unit for ResearchUtilisation

De Boer-BuquicchioM (2003) Justice for E"o e's Children The 6h Kilbrandon Child Care Lecture

Dechant K, Marick VJ and Kasl E (1973) 'Towards a model of team leaming' Studiesin Continuing Education15(l), 1-14

Deering J, Thurston R and VanstoneM (1996) 'Individual supervisionand reconviction: an experimentalprogramme in Pontypridd' ProbationJournal 43(2), 70-76

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2000) 'Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research' in Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative ResearchLondon, Sage

Depaitment of Justice Canada (2003) Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act www. canada.justice. ca/en/dept/pub/ycja/youth. html

Dixon J, Kouzmin A and Korac-KakabadseNK (1998) 'Managerialism - something old, somethingborrowed, little new: economicprescription versus effective organizationalchange in public agencies'International Journal of Public SectorManagem 11(2/3), 164-187

Drakeford M (2001) 'Children's rights and welfare: towards a new synthesis' Youth Justice l(l), 40-44

Dunkel F (1996) Tuffent directions in criminal policy' in McCarney W (ed) Juvenile Delinguentsand Young Pgole in Danger in an Qpen Environment Winchester,Waterside Press

DTZ Pieda Consulting (2005) Measurementof the Extent of Youth Crime in Scotland ScottishExecutive, www. scotland.gov. uk/Publications/2005/03/31141334/13357

EadieT and CantonR (2002) 'Practising in a context of ambivalence:the challengefor youth justice workers' Youth Justice2(l), 14-26

EstradaF (1999) 'Juvenile crime trends in post-war Europe' EuropeanJournal on Criminal Policy and Research7,23-42

EstradaF (2001) 'Juvenile violence as a social problem: trends, media attentionand societal response'British Journalof Criminolo, 41,639-655

FabbJ andGuthrie TG (1997)Social Work Law in ScotlandEdinburgh, Butterworths

Falkirk Council (2002) Children's ServicesPlan Falkirk Council (unpublished)

Falkirk Council (2003) Youth Crime Audit Falkirk Council Housing and Social Work Services

312 Falkirk Council (2004a)Connect Annual Roort 2003 Falkirk Council

Falkirk Council (2004b) Youth Justice Referral GroMpEvaluation Sqpt 2003 to April 2004 (unpublished)

FalkiTk Council (2005) Youth JusticeRefemal GToup Evaluation May 2004 to OctobeT2004 (unpublished)

Faffall S (2002) Rethinking What Works with Offenders: Probation. Social Context and Desistancefrom Crime Cullompton, Willan

Farrell MP, Schmitt MH and Heinemann GD (2001) 'Informal roles and the stages of interdisciplinary team development'Journal of IntpMrofessionalCare 15(3), 281-295

Farrington D (1996) Understandingand Preventing Youth Crime Social policy Research Findings no 93 York, JosephRowntree Foundation

Feeley M and Simon J (1992) 'The new penology: notes on the emerging strategy of correctionsand its implications' Criminology 30(4), 449-473

Feizler M, Appleton C, RobertsC and Hoyle C (2004) The National Evaluationof the Youth JusticeBoard Coggitive BehaviourProjects London, Youth JusticeBoard

Ferrell J (2003) 'Cultural criminology' in McLaughlin E, Muncie J and Hughes G (eds) 2nd edition Criminological PMpectives: EssentialReadings London, Sage

Fielding N (2001) 'Ethnography' in Gilbert N (ed) ResearchingSocial Life London Sage

Flood-PageC, Campbell S, Harrington V and Miller J (2000) Youth Crime: Findings from the 1998/99Youth LifesoLleSurvqy Home Office ResearchStudy 209 London, Home Office

FontanaA and Frey JH (2000) 'The interview: From structuredquestions to negotiatedtext' in Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds)Handbook oQualitative ResearchLondon, Sage

Ford R, Ditton J and Laybourn A (1992) Probation in Scotland: Policy and Practice Edinburgh,Scottish Office CentralResearch Unit

Fottrell D (2000) 'Bringing rights all the way home: Some issues of law and policy in international law and juvenile justice' in Pickford J Youth Justice: Thega and Practice London, Cavendish

FoucaultM (1991) 'Govennnentality'in Burchell G, GordonC and Miller P (eds) The FoucaultEffect: Studies in GovennnentalilyChicago, University of ChicagoPress

Foucault M (2003) 'Governmentality' in McL! uplin E, Muncie J and Hughes G (eds) Criminological P=ectives: EssentialReadi= 2n edition London, Sage

Fraser, Lord (1995) 'Foreword' in Asquith S (ed) The Kilbrandon Romt Children and Young PersonsScotland - Children in SociM SeriesEdinburgh HMSO

313 FreethD (2000) 'Sustaininginterprofessional collaboration' Journalof Inte!professional Care 15(l), 37-46

Fullan MG (1986) 'The managementof change' World Yearbookof Education73-86

Fullwood C and Powell H (2004) 'Towards effective practice in the youth justice system' in Burnett R and Roberts C (eds) What Works in Probation and Youth Justice Cullompton, Willan

Furniss J and Nutley S (2000) 'Implementing what works with offenders - the effective practiceinitiative' Public Money andManagement October-November 23-28

Gardner R (2003) 'Working together to improve children's life chances:the challenge of inter-agencycollaboration' in Weinstein J, Whittington C and Leiba T (eds) Collaboration in Social Work PracticeLondon, JessicaKingsley

Garland D (1996) 'The limits of the sovereignstate' British Journal of Criminolo 36(4), 445-471

Garland D (2003) 'Govemmentality and the problem of crime' in McLaughlin E, Muncie J and Hughes G (eds) Criminological Pmpectives: Essential Readings r edition London, Sage

GarsideR (2003) Media and Crime Speechto Nacro conferenceNovember 19 2003

Garside R (2004) Crime. Persistent Offenders and the Justice GAP London, Crime and SocietyFoundation

Gibbs (1998) Probation PgAnerships: A Study of Roles. Relation"hi s and Meanings ProbationStudies Unit Reportno 7 Oxford, ProbationStudies Unit

Gibbs A (1999) 'The forgotten voice: probation service users and partnerships' Howard Journal38(3), 283-299

Gibbs A (2001a) 'Partnerships between the probation service and voluntary sector organisations'British Journalof Social Work 31,15-27

Gibbs A (2001b) 'The changingnature and contentof social work research'British Journalof Social Work 31(5), 687-704

GiddensA (1984) Deoa of Structuration.Cambridge, Policy Press

GiddensA (1998) The 'Third Wgy': The Renewalof Social Democrac Oxford, Blackwell

Giddens,A (2000) The 'Third YLay' and its Critics Oxford, Blackwell

Gillharn B (2000) CaseStLdy ResearchMethods London, Continuum

314 Glennie S (2003) 'Safeguardingchildren together:addressing the interprofessionalagenda' in Leathard.A (ed) IntelprofessionalCollaboration: From Policy to Practicein Health and Social CareHove, Brumer Routledge

Goddard J (2003) 'Youth justice policy in the United Kingdom' Criminal Justice Studies 16(4) 329-338

Goldson B (2000a) 'Children in need' or 'young offendersT Hardening ideology, organizationalchange and new challengesfor social work with children in trouble' Child and Family Social Work 5,255-265

GoldsonB (2000b) (ed) The New Youth JusticeLyme Regis,Russell House Publishing

Goldson B (2002) 'New punitiveness: The politics of child incarceration' in Muncie J, HughesG and McLaughlin E (eds)Youth Justice:Critical ReadingsLondon, Sage

Goldson B (2005a)'Differential justice? A critical introduction to youth justice policy in UK jurisdictions' in McGhee J, Mellon M, Whyte B (eds) Meeting Needs.Addressing Deeds Working with Young Peoplewho Offend Scotland,NCH

Goldson B (2005b) 'Beyond formalism: towards 'informal' approachesto youth crime and youth justice' in BatemanT and Pitts J (eds) RHP Companionto Youth Justice e Regis, Russell HousePublishing

Gomm R, HarnmersleyM and FosterP (2000) 'Case study and generalisation'in Gomm 1ý, HammersleyM and FosterP (eds) CaseStudy Method London, Sage

GrahamJ (1996) 'The organisationand functioning ofjuvenile justice in Englandand Wales' in Asquith S (ed) Children and Young P20le in Conflict With the Law- ResearchHighlights Social Work 30 London, Kingsley

GrahamJ (2002) 'Juvenile crime in andjustice in Englandand Wales' in Bala NMC, Hornick JP and SnyderHN (eds)Juvenile JusticeSMtems: An InternationalComparison of Problems and SolutionsToronto, Thompson

GrahamJ andBowling B (1995) Young PMle and Crime London, Home Office

GreenwoodDJ and Levin M (2000) 'Reconstructingthe relationshipsbetween universities and society through action research' in Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of QLWitativeResearch London, Sage

Griffith P (2002) 'Juvenile delinquency in time' in Cox P and Shore H (eds) Becoming DelinguentAldershot, Ashgate

Hagell A (2005) 'The use of custody for children and young people' in BatemanT and Pitts J (eds) RHP Cmpanion to Youth JusticeLyme Regis,Russell House Publishing

Hallet C (2000) 'Ahead of the gameor behind the times? The Scottish Children's Hearings Systemin Internationalcontext' InternationalJournal of Law. Policy and the Famil 14,3 1- 44

315 Hallet C& Hazel N (1998) The Evaluation of Children's Hearings in Scotlandvol 2 The international Context: Trends in Juvenile Justice and Welfare Edinburgh, Scottish Office Central ResearchUnit

HammarbergT (1995) 'Children, crime and society: Perspectivesof the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in Howard League Report Child Offenders:UK and International PracticeLondon, Howard league

HammersleyM (1996) 'The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research' in RichardsonJT (ed) Handbookof qualitativeResearch Methods for Psychologyand the Social SciencesDerby, British PsychologicalSociety

Hammersley M and Atkinson P (1983) Ethno"a hy: Principles in Practice London, Tavistock

Hart E and Fletcher J (1999) Teaming how to change:a selective analysisof literature and experienceof how temns learn and organisationschange' Journal of Intnrofessional Care 13(l), 53-63

Hedderman C and Sugg D (1997) Changing Offenders' Attitudes and Behaviour: What Works? Part II The Influence of Cognitive AMproaches:A Surveyof Probation Programmes Home Office ResearchStudy 171London, HomeOffice

Hendrick H (2002) Constructionsand reconstructionsof British childhood: an interpretative survey, 1800 to the presentin Muncie J, Hughes G and McLaughlin (eds) Youth Justice: Critical ReadingsLondon, Sage

Herz RG (1996) 'Historical reminder of juvenile justice legislation' in McCamey W (ed) Juvenile Delinguents and Young Ppople in Danger in an Qpen Envirompent Winchester, WatersidePress

Hewitt J, Cryle G and Ballintyne S (2004) Threadsof Success:A SLiLdyof Communily S Paggershipsin Scotlandwww. scotland.gov. uk/library3/society/tosm-04. asp

Hill M, Walker M, Moodie K, Wallace B, Bannister J, Khan F, McIvor G and Kendrick A (2005) Fast Track Children's Hearings Pilot: Final Rnort of the Evaluation of the Pilot (Abridged version) Edinburgh,Scottish Executive

Hodder1 (2000)'The interpretationof documentsand materialculture' in DenzinNK and LincolnYS (eds)Handbook of QgglitativeResearch London, Sage

Hoge RD and Andrews DA (2001) The Youth Level of Service / Case Management InvgnLoM:Intake Manual and Itern Scoring Key Cardiff, The Cognitive CentreFoundation

HoldawayS, DavidsonN, Dignan J, HammersleyR, Hine J and Marsh P (2001) New Strategiesto Address Youth Offending: The National Evaluation of the Pilot Youth OffendingTeams London Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate

316 Hollin CR (1996) 'Young offenders' in Hollin C (ed) Working With Offenders: PsychologicalPractice in OffenderRehabilitation Chichester,Wiley

Hohnan B (2005) 'Who wrote thisT Communily Care4- 10 August, p 15

Holstein JA and Gubrium JF (1997) 'Active interviewing' in Silverman D (ed) Qualitative Research:TheoM Method andPractice London, Sage

Home Office (1999) Interim ftort on Youth Offending TeamsLondon, Home Office

Horwath J andMorrison T (2000) 'Identifying and implementingpathways for organizational change- using the framework for the assessmentof children in need and their families in a caseexample' Child andFamily Social Work 5,245-254

HughesG (2000) 'Understandingthe politics of criminological research'in JuppV, Davies P andFrancis P (eds) (2000) Doing Criminological ResearchLondon, Sage

Hughes G, Pilkington A and Leisten R (1998) 'Diversion in a culture of severity' Howard Journalof Criminal Justice37(l) 16-33

Iles V andSutherland K (2001)Qrganisational Change: A Reviewfor HealthCare Managgrs. Professionalsand ResearchersLondon, National Co-ordinatingCentre for NHS Service Deliveryand Organisation Research and Development (NCCSDO)

Independent(2005) 'Death by gossip' IndgpendentWednesday 23/3/05

Innes M (2001) 'Investigating the investigators- studying the detectivework' in Gilbert N (ed) ResearchingSocial Life London Sage

Irvine R, Kerridge I, McPhee J and Freeman S (2002) 'Interprofessionalismand ethics: consensusor clashof culturesT Journal of Inttrmrofessional Care 16(3), 199-210

James AL and Bottomley AK (1994) 'Probation partnershipsrevisited' Howard Journal 33(2), 158-168

JamesAL andJames A (2001) 'Tightening the net: children, community and control' British Journal of Sociolo 52(2), 211-228

JamiesonJ, McIvor G andMurray C (1999)Understanding Offending Among Young P=le Stirling,Social Work ResearchCentre

JanesickVJ (2000) 'The choreographyof qualitative researchdesign' in Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Handbookof Qwlitative ResearchLondon, Sage

JensonJM, Potter CC and Howard MO (2001) American JuvenileJustice: Recent Trends and Issuesin Youth Offending Social Policy & Administration 35(l), -48-68

JacksonSE (1998) Family group conferencesin Youth Justice:The issuesfor implernentation in Englandand WalesThe Howard Journal 37(l), 34-51

317 JonesAL and JonesA (2001) 'Tightening the net: children, community and control' British Journal of Sociolo 52(2) 211-228

Jones HE (1985) Intermediate Treatment in Scotland Edinburgh, Scottish Office Central ResearchUnit

JonesR (1980) 'The preventiveand the penal: A Commenton two models of intermediate treatment' Journalof Adolescence3,307-320 cited in RobertsonA andMcClintock D (1996) 'The communitybased alternative: intermediate treatment for young offender' in Asquith S (ed) Children andYoung Pepplein Conflict with the Law London,Jessica Kingsley

Jupp V, Davies P and FrancisP (eds)(2000) Doing Criminological ResearchLondon, Sage

Kane RA (1975) IntgMrofessiOnalTeamwork New York, SyracuseUniversity cited in Payne M (2000) Teamworkin Multi-professionalCare London, MacMillan

Kemmis S and McTaggart R (2000) 'Participatory action research' in Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Handbookof Qualitative ResearchLondon, Sage

Kempf-LeonardK and PetersonE (2002) 'Expanding realmsof the new penology:the advent of actuarial justice for juveniles' in Muncie J, Hughes G and McLaughlin E (eds) Youth Justice:Critical ReadingsLondon, Sage

Kemshall H (1996a) Reviewing Risk -A Review of Researchon the Assessmentand Managemýt of Risk andDangerousness: implication for Policy and PracticeLondon, Home Office

Keinshall H (1996b) 'Offender risk and probation practice' in Kemshall H and Pritchard J (eds)Good Practicein Risk Assessmentand Risk ManagementLondon, Jessica Kingsley

KernshallH (2005) 'Risk assessmentand young peoplewho offend' in McGheeJ, Mellon M and Whyte B (eds) Meeting Needs.Addressing Deeds - Working with Young PeopleWho Offend Scotland,NCH

Kennedy R and McIvor G (1992) Young Offenders in the Children's Hearing and Criminal Justice Systems:A CoMparativeAnalysis Tayside Social Work Department/ University of Stirling

King RD and Wincup E (2000) Doing Researchon Crime and Justice Oxford, Oxford University Press

Knott C (2004)'Evidence-based practice in the nationalprobation service' in BurnettR and RobertsC (eds)What Works in Probationand Youth Justice:Develggipg Evidence-based PracticeCullompton, Willan

Lab SPand Whtehead JT (1990)'From 'nothingworks' to 'the appropriateworks: ' the latest on thesearch for thesecular grail' Criminology28(3), 405-417

Lahalle A (1996) 'The research' in McCamey W (ed) Juvenile Delinguents and Youn PMle in Dangerin an QRenEnviromnent Winchester, Waterside Press

318 Laidler P (1991) 'Adults, and how to become one' Thergpy Wýekly 17(35), 4 cited in Molyneux J (2001) 'Interprofessionaltearnworking: what makesteams work wellT Journal of IntpMrofessionalCare 15(l), 29-35

Laming Lord (2003) The Victoria Climbie Lnqui www. v-c-i. org.uk/finreport/finreport. html

Langan M (2000) 'Social services:managing the 'Third Way" in Clarke J, Gewirtz S and McLaughlin E (eds)New ManagerialismNew Welfare London, Sage

Laub JH and SampsonRJ (2003) SharedBeginnings. Divggent Lives: Delinquent Boy§ to Age 70 London, Harvard University Press

Levy L and McIvor (2001) National Evaluation of the Qperation and impact of Smpervised AttendanceOrders Edinburgh, Scottish Executive Central Research Unit

Layder D (1998) SociologicalPractice: Linking TheoKyand Social ResearchLondon, Sage

Leathard A (2003a) (ed) IntpWrofessionalCollaborafion: From Policy to Practicein Health andSocial CareHove, Bnuner Routledge

LeathardA (2003b) 'Models for interprofessionalcollaboration' in LeathardA (2003) (ed) IntpMrofessionalCollaboration: From Policy to Practice in Health and Social Care Hove, Brumer Routledge

Lernert EM (1972) Human Deviance. Social Problems and Social Control 2"d edition New Jersey,Prentice-Hall

Levine IS and Fleming M (1985) Human Resource Devel2pment: Issues in Case Managemýt Rockville, MD: National institute for Mental Health in Partridge S (2004) Examining CaseManagement Models for Communily SentencesHome Office Online Report 17/04

Levy L and McIvor G (2001) National Evaluation of the Qperation and iftlementation of SLapervisedAttendance Orders Edinburgh, Scottish ExecutiveCentral ResearchUnit

Liebling A (2001) 'Whose side are we on? Theory,practice and allegiancesin prison research'British Journal of Criminolo 41,472-484

Lincoln YS and Guba EG (2000) 'The only generalisationis: there is no generalisation'in Gomm R, HanunersleyM and FosterP (eds) CaseSlILdy Method London, Sage

Ling T (2000) 'Unpacking partnership:the caseof health care' in Clarke J, Gewirtz S and McLaughlin E (eds) New ManagerialismNew Welfare London, Sage

Lipsey M (1995)'What Do We Learn From 400 ResearchStudies On The EffectivenessOf Treatment With Juvenile Delinquents' in McGuire J (ed) What Works: Reduc Reoffendin& GuidelinesFrom ResearchAnd Practice Chichester,John Wiley and Sons

319 Lipton D, Martinson R& Wilks J (1975) The Effectivenessof CorrectionalTreatment: A Surveyof TreatmentEvaluation Studies New York, Praeger

Loader I and Sparks R (2002) 'Contemporary landscapesof crime, order and control: governance,risk and globalization' in Maguire M, Morgan R and Reiner R (eds) The Oxford Handbookof CriminolqW Yd edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Lobley D and Smith D (1999) Working With PersistentJuvenile Offenders: An Evaluationof the ARex CueTenProject Edinburgh,Scottish Office

Lobley D, Smith D, Stem C (2001) Freagarrach:An Evaluation of a Project for Persistent Juvenile OffendersEdinburgh, Scottish Executive Central ResearchUnit

Lockyer A (1994) The Scottish Children's Hearing System:Internal Developmentsand the UN Convention in Asquith S and Hill M (eds) Justice for Children Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff

Lockyer A and Stone FH (1998) 'Prospects' in Lockyer A and Stone FH (eds) Juvenile Justicein Scotland:TwgM Five Years of the Welfare AMroach A andT Clark, Edinburgh

Locke T (1990) New AMroaches To Crime in the 1990sHarlow, Longman

Loflin T (1995) 'Treatmentof juveniles accusedof criminal offencesin the USA' in Howard League Report Child Offenders: UK and International Practice Howard League for Penal Reform, London

Losel.F (1995) 'The efficacy of correctional treatment: a review and synthesisof meta- evaluations' in McGuire J (ed) What Works: Reducing Reoffending - Guidelines from Researchand Practice Chichester, John Wiley and Sons

Lowe F and O'Hara S (2000) 'Multi-disciplinary team working in practice: managing the transition' Journalof IntgMrofessiOnalCare 14(3), 269-279

Loxley A (1997) Collaboration in Health Welfare: Working With Difference London, and ' JessicaKingsley cited in Payne M (2000) Teamwork in Multi: professional Care London, MacMillan

Macdonald G (1994) 'Developing empirically basedpractice in probation' British Journal of Social Work 24,405-427

MacdonaldG (1999)'Evidence-based social care: wheels off the runway?Public Mongy and Mp MementJanuary-March, 25-32

MacdonaldK (2001) 'Using documents'in GilbertN (ed) ResearchingSocial Life London Sage

Magarey S (2002) 'The invention of juvenile delinquency in early nineteenth-century England' in Muncie J, Hughes G and McLaughlin (eds) Youth Justice: Critical Readings- London, Sage

320 Maguire M (2000) 'Researching'street criminals': A neglectedart' in King RD and Wincup E (eds)Doing Researchon Crime And JusticeOxford, Oxford University Press

Mair G (1991) What Works - Nothing of evMjbing? Measuring the Effectiveness of SentencesHome Office ResearchBulletin 30,3-8 London, HMSO

Mair G (1994) 'The origins of what works in Englandand Wales: a housebuilt on sand?in Mair G (ed) What Mattersin ProbationCullompton, Willan Publishing

Mair G (2000)' Researchon community penalties' in King RD and Wincup E (eds) Doing Researchon Crime And JusticeOxford, Oxford University Press

Mair G (2004) (ed) What Mattersin ProbationCullompton, Willan

Mair G and CopasF (1996) 'Nothing works and what works- meta-analysis?British Journal of Criminolo unpublishedcited in VennardJ, Sugg D and HeddermanC (1997) Changing Offenders' Attitudes andBehaviour: What Works? Part 1: The Use of Cognitive-Behavioural Approacheswith Offenders-Messagesfrom the ResearchHome Office ResearchStudy 171 London, Home Office

MarshallK, JamesonC, FinlaysonA (1999) Edinburgh'sChildren: The ftort of the Edinburfh inguiry into Abuseand Protection of Childrenin Care www.edinburgh. gov. uk/CEC/Social-Work/Social-Work-and-Care- Services/Abuseý__Inquiry/abuse.htmI

Marshall TF (1999) RestorativeJustice: An Overview London, Home Office

Martin FM, Fox SJ and Murray K (1981) Children Out of Court Edinburgh, Scottish AcademicPress

Martinson R (1974) 'What Works? - QuestionsAnd Answers About Prison Reform' The Public Interest 10,22-24

Maruna S (2000) 'Desistanceftom crime and offender rehabilitation: a tale of two research literatures' Offender ProgLamsR Mort May/June4(l)

Martma S (2001) Making Good: How Ex Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives Washington,American Psychological Association

MatfliewsR andYoung J (1992)(eds) Issues in RealistCriminolo London,Sage

Matza D (1964) Delinquencyand Drift London, JohnWiley and Sons

Maxwell G and Morris A (2002) Youth Justicein New Zealand:A RestorativeModel PUer from United Nations Crime Congress,Vienna

May M (2002) 'Innocence and experience: the evaluation of the concept of juvenile delinquencyin the mid-nineteenthcentury' in Muncie J, Hughes G and McLaughlin E (eds) Youth Justice:Critical Readingi London, Sage

321 McGuire J (1993) Cognitive-BehaviouralApproaches: An IntroductoKyCourse on Theo and ResearchUniversity of Liverpool

McGuire J (ed) (1995) What Works: Reducing Offending: Guidelines from Researchand PracticeChichester, Wiley

McGuire J (2002) 'Integrating findings from researchreviews' in McGuire J (ed) Offende Rehabilitation andTreatment Chichester, Wiley

McGuire J and Priestley P (1995) 'Reviewing what works: part, present and fiiture' in McGuire J (ed) (1995) What Works: Reducing Offending: Guidelines from Researchand PracticeChichester, Wiley

McIvor G (1990) Sanctionsfor Seriousand Persistentand PersistentOffenders: A Review of the Literature Stirling, Social Work ResearchCentre

McIvor G (1995) 'Practitioner evaluation in research' in McGuire M (ed) (1995) What Works: ReducingOffending: Guidelinesfrom Researchand PracticeChichester, Wiley

Mclvor G (2004) 'Getting personal:developments in policy andpractice in Scotland' in Mair G (ed) What Mattersin ProbationCullompton, Willan Publishing

McIvor G (2005)'Addressing youth crime - prevention,diversion and effective intervention' in McGheeJ, Mellon M andWhyte B (eds)Meeting Needs. Addressing Deeds - Workin with YoungPegple Who OffendScotland NCH

Mclvor G and Barry M (1998) Social Work and Criminal Justice: Probation Edinburgh, Scottish Office Central ResearchUnit

McIvor G and Moodie K (2002) Evaluation of the Matrix Project Scottish Executive www. scotland.gov. uk/library5/education/matrixeval. pdf

McIvor G, Brown A, Eley S, Malloch M, Murray C, Piacentini L and Walters R (2004) The Hamilton Youth Court Pilot: The First Six Months Edinburgh,Scottish ExecutiveCrime and Criminal JusticeResearch Programme 77/2004

McKeownK (2000)What Works in FamilySmMrt for VulnerableChildren and Families IrelandDepartment of Healthwww. welfare. ie/publication

McLarenKL (2000)Tough is not Enough- GettiLigSmart about Youth Crime:A review of researchon whatworks to reduceoffending by youngRpole Wellington,Ministry of Youth Affairs

McLaughlin E and Muncie J (2000) 'The criminal justice system: New Labour's New Partnerships' in Clarke J, Gewirtz S and McLaughlin E (eds) New Managendalism New Welfare London, Sage

McLaughlin E, Muncie J and HughesG (2001) 'The permanentrevolution: new Labour, new public managementand the modernizationof criminal justice' Criminal Justice 1(3), 301-318

322 McNiff J and Whitehead J (2000) Action Research: Principles and Practice London, Routledge

McNeill F (2000a) 'Measuring effectiveness:linking policy, researchand practice Probation Journal47(l), 4-11

McNeill F (2000b) 'Defining Effective Probation: Frontline PerspectivesThe Howard Journal39(4), 382-397

McNeill F (2003) 'Desistance-focussedprobation practice' in Chui W-H and Nellis M (eds) Moving ProbationForward: Evidence.Arguments and Practice Harlow, PearsonEducation

McNeill F (2004) 'Desistance, rehabilitation and correctionalism: Developments and prospectsin Scotland' Howard Journal43(4), 420-436

McNeill F and Batchelor S (2004) Persistent Offending by Young PeLDPle:Develoing PracticeIssues in Community and Criminal JusticeMonograph 3

McNeill F, Batchelor S, Burnett R and Knox J (2005) 21" Cenwa Social Work - Reducing Re-offending: Key Practice Skills Edinburgh, Scottish Executive Social Work Inspection Agency

McVie S, Campbell S and Lebov K (2004) ScottishCrime Survey2003 Edinburgh,Scottish ExecutiveSocial Research

Merigeau M (1996) 'Legal fimneworks and interventions' in McCarney W (ed) Juvenil Deli Laguentsand Young People in Danger in an QRenEnvironment Winchester,Waterside Press

Merrington S and Stanley S (2000) 'Doubts about the what works initiative' Probation Journal 47,272-275

Merrington S and Stanley S (2004) 'What works? Revisiting the evidencein England and Wales' ProbationJournal 51(l), 7-20

Miers D (2001) An InternationalReview of RestorativeJustice Crime ReductionSeries Paper 10, London,Home Office

Mishra R (1984) The Welfare Statein Crisis Hemel Hempstead,Harvester

Molyneux J (2001) 'Interprofessionalteamworking: what makes teamswork wellT Journal of Intg1professionalCare 15(l), 29-35

Moore G and Whyte B (1998) Social Work and Criminal Law in Scotland Edinburgh, Mercat Press

Morgan R (2004) 'Pursuing evidence-basedinspection' in Burnett R and Roberts C (eds) What Works in Probationand Youth JusticeCullompton, Willan

323 Morris A (2002) 'Critiquing the critics: A brief responseto critics of restorativejustice' British Journalof Criminolog 24,596-615

Morris A and Giller H (1987) UnderstandingJuvenile Justice London, Croom.Helm

Mullett D (2001) The Nacro Guide to PartnershipWorkin London,Nacro

Muncie J (1999) Youth Justice:A Critical Introduction London, Sage

Muncie J (2002) 'Policy transfer and what works: some reflections on comparativeyouth justice' Youth Justice1(3), 27-35

Muncie J (2004) Youth & Crime (2nd edition) London, Sage

Muncie J and Hughes G (2002) 'Modes of youth governance: political rationalities, criminalization and resistance' in Muncie J, Hughes G and McLaughlin E (eds) Youth Justice:Critical Readiffs London, Sage

Muncie J, Hughes G and McLaughlin E (2002) (eds) Youth Justice: Critical Readings London, Sage

Murray K (1988) 'Children's Hearings' in English J (ed) Social Services in Scotland Edinburgh,Scottish Academic Press

Murray K (1998) 'The contribution of research' in Lockyer A and StoneFH (eds) Juvenile Justicein Scotland:Twoty Five Yearsof the Welfare ApproachA&T Clark, Edinburgh

MVA (2002) Young People and Crime in Scotland:Findings from the 2000 Scottish Crime Sury Edinburgh,Scottish ExecutiveCentral Research Unit

NCCSDO (2001) Making Informed Decisions on Change: Key Points for Health Care Managers and Professionals London, National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and OrganisationResearch and Development

NCH Scotland (2004) Where's Kilbrandon Now: RVort and Recommendationsfrom the Lnqui Edinburgh,NCH Scotland

Newburn T (2002) 'Young people, crime and youth justice' in Maguire M, Morgan R and ReinerR (eds)The Oxford Handbookof Criminology P edition Oxford, University Press

Newman J (2000) 'Beyond the new public management?Modernising public services' in Clarke J, Gewirtz S and McLaughlin E (eds) New Mana-gerialismNew Welfare London, Sage

Newman J and Nutley S (2003) 'Transforming the probation service: 'what works', organisationalchange and professionalidentity' Policy andPolitics 31(4), 547-563

Noaks L and Wincup E (2004) Criminological Research:Understanding Qualitative Methods London, Sage

324 Nutley SM and Davies TO (1999) 'The fall and rise of evidencein criminal justice' Public Money andManagement January-March, 47-54

Nutley S, Davies H and Walter 1 (2004) Tearning from knowledgemanagement' Concpptual S3mftesis2 University of St Andrews,Research Unit for ResearchUtilisation

Nutley S, Walter I and Davies H (2003) 'From knowing to doing: A framework for understandingthe evidence-into-practiceagenda' Evaluation 9(2), 125-148

O'Connor 1, Daly K and Hinds L (2002) The Juvenile Justice Systemin Australia in Bala NMC, Hornick JP and Snyder HN (eds) Juvenile Justice Systems: An International CoWarison of Problemsand SolutionsToronto, Thompson

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention(1996a) StateReMonses to Serious and Violent JuvenileCrime WashingtonDC, OJJDP

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1996b) Combating Violence and Delinguency:The National JuvenileJustice Action Plan Summ WashingtonDC, OJJDP

Office of JuvenileJustice and DelinquencyPrevention (2001) A Comparisonof Four RestorativeConferencing Models Washington DC, OJJDP

Omaji P (2003) RegpondingTo Youth Crime: TowardsRadical Criminal JusticePgAgershiRs Sydney,Hawkins

Ovretveit J (1997) 'How to describeinterprofessional working' in Ovretveit J, MathiasP and Thompson T (1997) IntgWrofessional Working for Health and Social Care London, MacMillan

Ovretveit J, Mathias P and Thompson T (1997) InIgprofessional Working for Health and Social Care London, MacMillan

PA Consulting Group (2004) Scottish Youth Justice Baseline www.childrens- hearings.co. uk/doc/Ministerialý/ý20Baselineý/ý2oReport. doc

Partridge S (2004) Examining CaseManggement Models for Communily SentencesHome Office Online Report 17/04

ParsloeP (1978)Juvenile Justice in Britain andthe United States:The Balance of Needsand RigbtsLondon, Routledge and Kegan Paul

PawsonR andTilley N (1997) Realistic EvaluationLondon, Sage

PayneM (2000) Teamworkin Multi: RrofessionalCare London, MacMillan

PearsonG, Blagg H, Smith D, SampsonA and Stubbs P (1992) 'Crime, Community and Conflict: The Multi-Agency Approach' in Downes D (ed) Unravelling Criminal Justice Basingstoke,Macmillan

325 PeaseK (2002) 'Crime reduction' in Maguire M, Morgan R and Reiner R (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminglogy Yd edition, Oxford, University Press

Perakyla A (1997) 'Reliability and validity in researchbased on tapes and transcripts' in Silvennan D (ed) Qualitative Research:Theory, Method andPractice London, Sage

Pettigrew A, McKee L and Ferlie E (1988) 'Understanding change in the NHS' Public Administration 66,297-317

Pitts P (1992) 'The endof an era' Howard Joumal of Criminal Justice31(2), 133-148

Pitts J (2001) 'The new correctionalism:young people, youth justice and New Labour' in Matthews R and Pitts J (eds) Crime. Disorder and Community Safýty London, Routledge

Pitts J (2003) 'Changingyouth justice' Youth Justice3(l), 3-18

Pitts J (2005) 'The recenthistory of youth justice in England and Wales' in BatemanT and Pitts J (eds)The RHP CMRanion to Youth JusticeLyme Regis,Russell House

Pitts J and BatemanT (2005) 'Youth crime in England and Wales' in BatemanT and Pitts J (eds)The RHP Companionto Youth JusticeLyme Regis,Russell House

PophamF, McIvor G, Brown A, Eley S, Malloch M, Murray C, Murray L, PiacentiniL and Walters R (2005) Evaluation of the Hamilton Youth Court Pilot Edinburgh, Scottish Executive Crime and Criminal JusticeResearch Programme, Research Findings 80/2005

Porteous D (2005) 'Mentoring in Youth Justice' in Bateman T and Pitts J (eds) RHP CpMRanionto Youth JusticeLyme Regis,Russell House Publishing

Powell J (2002) 'The changing conditions of social work research' British Journal of Social Work 32(l), 17-33

Pratt J (1989) 'Corporatism: the third model of juvenile justice' British Journal of Criminology 29 (3), 236-244

Prison Fellowship International (2000) 'What is restorative justice? Restorative justice briefing paper' www. restorativejustice.oirgLd3/lntroduction -Definition/WhatisRJ

Raine JW and Wilson MJ (1997) 'Beyond managerialismin criminal justice' Howard Journal 36(l), 80-95

Raynor P (1998) 'Attitudes, Social Problemsand Reconvictionsin the STOPProbation Experiment'The Howard Journal 37(l), 1-15)

RaynorP (2004) 'Rehabilitativeand reintegrativeapproaches' in BottomsA, Rex S and RobinsonG (eds)Alternatives to Prison:Qptions for an InsecureSociet Cullompton,Willan

Raynor P, Smith D and VanstoneM (1994) Effective ProbationPractice London, Macmillan

326 Raynor P and VanstoneM (1998) 'Probation practice, effectivenessand the non-treatment paradigm' British Journalof Social Work 24,387-404

Reiner R (2000) 'Police research'in King RD and Wincup E (eds)Doing Researchon Crime And JusticeOxford, Oxford University Press

Rex S (1999) 'Desistancefrom offending: experiencesof probation' Howard Journal 38(4), 366-383

Rist RC (2000) 'Influencing the policy processwith qualitative research'in Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds)Handbook of Qualitative ResearchLondon, Sage

RobertsonA and McClintock D (1996) 'The community basedalternative: intermediate treatmentfor young offenders' in Asquith S (ed) Children andYoung Pegplein Conflict with the Law London, JessicaKingsley

RobinsonG (2005) 'What works in offender managementTHoward Journal44(3), 307-318

Robinson G andDignan J (2004) 'Sentencemanagement' in Bottoms A, Rex S andRobinson G (eds) Alternativesto PrisonCullompton, Willan

Robinson G& McNeill F (2004) in Mair G (ed) What Matters in Probation Work? Cullompton,Willan

RoseN (2000) 'Governmentand control' British Journalof Criminolqgy 40,321-339

Rubin HJ and Rubin IS (1995) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data London, Sage

Rush P (2002) 'The goverranentof a generation' in Muncie J, HughesG and McLaughlin E (eds)Youth Justice- Critical Readi= London, Sage

Rutter M, Giller H and Hagell A (1998) Antisocial Behaviourby Young PMle Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press

Sampson A and Smith D (1992) 'Probation and community crime prevention' Howard Lournal31(2), 105-119

SampsonA, StubbsP, Smith D, PearsonG and Blagg H (1988) 'Crime, localities and the multi-agencyapproach' British Journal of Criminolo 28(4), 478-493

Sawyer B (2000) An Evaluation of the SACRO (Fife) Young Offender Mediation Project Edinburgh,Scottish Executive Crime and Criminal JusticeResearch Findings No.43

SchofieldJW (2000) 'Increasingthe generalizabilityof qualitativeresearch' in Gomm R, HammersleyM andFoster P (eds)Case SL%dy Method London, Sage

SchwandtTA (2000)'Three epistemologicalstances for qualitativeinquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneuticsand socialconstructionism' in DenzinNK and Lincoln YS (eds)Handbook of QualitativeResearch London, Sage

327 Scotsman(2004) 'Tories defy public opinion on children's hearingsystem' Scotsman21 July http://news. scotsman. com/index. cftn? id=830442004

Scotsman (2005) 'Councils told: crackdown on yobs or lose funding' Scotsman2 June http://news. scotsman. com/politics. cfin? ld=603832005

Scottish Children's Reporter Administration (2002) Statistical Bulletin 2000-2001Stirling, SCRA

Scottish Children's Reporter Administration (2003a) Care and Justice for Children: Annual ftort 2001-2002Stirling, SCRA

Scottish Children's ReporterAdministration (2003b) Study on Youth Offending in Glasgow Stirling, SCRA

Scottish Children's ReporterAdministration (2004) Annual Boort 2002-03Scotland SCRA

ScottishChildren's ReporterAdministration (2005) Annual ftort 2003-04Scotland SCRA

Scottish Executive(1999a) Safer Communitiesin ScotlandEdinburgh, Scottish Executive

ScottishExecutive (1999b) Guidance for PathfinderProvider A"licants Edinburgh,Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive(2000) It's A Criminal Waste - ftort of the Advisoly GrogRon Youth Crime Edinburgh,Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2001a) The ftort of the Feasibifty Gromp on Youth Court Pilots Edinburgh,Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive(2001b) Making ScotlandSafer Edinburgh,Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2001c) Getting Best Results Newsletter Issue I Edinburgh, Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2001d) Getting Best Results Newsletter Issue 2 Edinburgh, Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2001e) For Scotland's Children: Better Integrated Children's Services Edinburgh,Scottish Office

Scottish Executive (2002a) National Standardsfor Scotland'sYouth Justice Services EdinburahScottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2002b) The 2000 Scottish Crime Smnmy:Overview RgRgrtEdinburgh, ScottishExecutive Central ResearchUnit

ScottishExecutive (2002c) It's Evglygne's Job to Make SureI'm Ahi&t: Ra2rt of the Child ProtectionAudit andReview Edinburgh,Scottish Executive

328 Scottish Executive (2002d) Scotland's Action Programme to Reduce Youth Crime Edinburgh,Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2002e) Youth Justice in Scotland: A Progess Kwort For All Those Working With Young PegpleWho Offend Edinburgh,Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2002f) Executive's Youth Crime Review - The Ad Hoc Ministerial Group on Youth Crime www. scotland.gov. uk/NewsNews-Extras/83

Scottish Executive (2002g) Latest initiatives on youth crime news release Seedl17/2002 18/10/04www. scotland.gov. uk/pages/news/2002/10/Seedl 17

Scottish Executive (2002h) Partnership Working: Key Issues Around Evaluation Edinburgh, Office of the Chief Researcher Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2003a) Criminal Justice Social Work Statistics 2002-03 Statistical Bulletin Criminal JusticeSeries CrJ2003/10

Scottish Executive (2003b) Hamilton to host first Youth Court www. scotland.gov. uk/pages/news/2003/01/SEJD198. aspx 27/01/03

Scottish Executive (2003c) Fast track hearings to tackle youth crime www. scotland.gov. uk/pages/ýews/2003/01/Seed. aspx 31/01/03

Scottish Executive (2003d) Children's HearingsRepresentative GroLap ftort on Children's HearingsTime Intervals2002-03 Edinburgh, Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive(2004a) Recordedcrime in Scotland2003 Edinburgh, Scottish Executive StatisticalBulletin Criminal JusticeSeries CrJ/2004/5

Scottish Executive (2004b) Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts 2002 Edinburgh, ScottishExecutive Statistical Bulletin Criminal JusticeSeries CrJ2004/1

Scottish Executive (2004c) Extra funding for youth justice News release 2004/01/4864 www. scotland.gov. uk/News/Releases/2004/01/4864

Scottish Executive (2004d) Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004: Consultation on Draft Guidanceon Local Authorily Accountabilily Edinburgh, ScottishExecutive

ScottishExecutive (2004e) Justice: Aftematives to custo www.scotiand. gov. uk/Topics/Justice/criminal/16906/6827)

ScottishExecutive (2004f) Protecting Children and Young PWle: Frameworksfor Standards Edinburgh,Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive(2005a) Getting it Right for EvW Child: ? Mosals for Action Edinburgh, Scottish Executive

329 Scottish Executive (2005b) Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts 2003 Edinburgh, ScottishExecutive Statistical Bulletin Criminal JusticeSeries CrJ/2005/4

Scottish Executive (2005c) RestorativeJustice Servicesin the Children's Hearings System Edinburgh,Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2005d) 'Youth offending figures show mixed results' www. scotland.gov. ukNews/Releases/2005/07/14121248 Edinburgh, Scottish Executive NewsRelease

Scottish Executive (2005e) SMorting Safer. Stronger Communities: Consultation on Criminal Justice Authorities Edinburgh, Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive and Scottish Children's Reporter Administration (2005) Scottish Youth JusticePerformance Update RMort 2004-05Edinburgh, Scottish Executive

Scottish Office (1991) National Objectives and Standardsfor Social Work Servicesin the Criminal JusticeSystem Edinburgh, Social Work ServicesGroup

Scottish Office (1996) Helping the Court Decide: ftort of an Inapectionof Social Eflqui Enorts for the Criminal Courts Edinburgh,Social Work ServicesInspectorate

Scottish Office (1998a) Management and Assessmentof Risk in Social Work Services Edinburgh,Social Work ServicesInspectorate

Scottish Office (1998b)Tough Qptions ScottishOffice, Edinburgh

Scottish office (1999) A Safer Scotland:Tackling Crime and its CausesEdinburgh, Scottish Office

ScottishParliament (2005) 'Inquiry into Youth Justice' Justice2 CommitteeReport www. scottish.parliament. uk/business/committeeg/justice2/ýýorts-05

Scottish Parliament Information Centre (2001) Children and the Scottish Criminal Justice SystemEdinburgh, Scottish Parliament

Scraton.P and Haydon D (2002) 'Challenging the criminalization of children and young people: securing a rights-basedagenda' in Muncie J, Hughes G and McLaughlin E (eds) Youth Justice:Critical ReadinggLondon, Sage

ScullionI, Nutley S and McQuillanR (2003)Managing Change in Criminal JusticeSocial Work Edinburgh,Criminal JusticeSocial Work DevelopmentCentre - TowardsEffective Practicepaper 3

SeymourJQ 993) 'Austmlia's juvenile justice system:a comment' in Gale F, Naffine N and WundersitzJ (eds)Juvenile Justice: Debating the IssuesSydney, Allen and Unwin

Sherman W and Strang H (1997) 'The right kind of shame for crime prevention' RISE Working Popersno. I Australian National University, Canberra

330 ShermanLW, StrangK and WoodsDJ (2000) Recidivism Patternsin the Canberra Reintegratve ShamingExperiments (RISE) Centrefor RestorativeJustice Research, School of Social SciencesAustralia National University

SHHD (1964) Children andYoung Persons(Scotland) London, HMSO

Smith C and Wincup E (2000) 'Breaking in: researchingcriminal justice institutions for women' in King RD and Wincup E (2000) Doing Researchon Crime and Justice Oxford, Oxford University Press

Smith D (1987) 'The limits of positivism in social work' British Journalof Social Work 17, 401-416

Smith D (2000a) 'Learning from the Scottish juvenile justice system' Probation Journal 47(l), 12-17

Smith D (2000b) 'Corporatism and the new youth justice' in GoldsonB (ed) The New Youth JusticeLyme Regis,Russell House Publishing

Smith D (2003) 'New Labour and youth justice' Children and Societ 17,226-235

Smith D, Paylor I and Mitchell P (1993) 'Partnershipsbetween the independentsector and the probation service' Howard Journal 32(l), 25-39

Smith R (2003) Youth Justice:Ideas. Policy andPractice Cullompton, Willan

Social Work Services Group (1991) National Objectives and Standardsfor Social Work Servicesin the Criminal JusticeSntem Edinburgh,Scottish Office

Stake RE (2000a) 'Case studies' in Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of QMalitativeResearch London, Sage

Stake RE (2000b) 'The casestudy methodin social inquiry' in Gomm R, HammersleyM and FosterP (eds)Case SLiLdy Method London, Sage

Stem,Baroness (2005) Speechat a youth justice conference,Holyrood, 24 January2005

StevensonR andBrotchie R (2004)Getting it Right: ft ort on the Regponsesto the Phase .- - One Consultationon the Review of the Children'sHearing S3AemEdinburgh, Scottish Executive

Stone F (1995) 'Introduction' Asquith S (ed) The Kilbrandon Rmort Children and Young PersonsScotland - Children in SocigV SeriesEdinburgh HMSO

Strang H and Sherman W (1997) 'The victim's perspective' RISE Working Pgpers no.2 Canberra,Australian National University

Swinkles A, Albarron JW, Measn R, Mikleu T and Stewart MC (2002) 'Evidence-based practice in health and social care: where are we nowT Journal of IntgMrofessional Care 16(4),335-347

331 Sykes GM and Matza D (1957) 'Techniques of neutralisation' American Sociological Review 22,664-670 reprinted in Muncie J, McLaughlin E and Langan M (eds)(2nd edition)(2003)Criminological PMpectives: EssentialReadings London, Sage

Symon G and CassellC (1998) 'Reflections on the use of qualitative methods' in Symon G and Cassell C (eds) Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organisational Research: A PracticalGuide London, Sage

Taylor 1,Walton P andYoung J (1973) The New Criminolo London, Routledge

Tedlock B (2000) 'Ethnographyand ethnographicrepresentation' in Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Handbookof Qualitative ResearchLondon, Sage

Trinder L (1996) 'Social work research:the stateof the art (or science)' in Child and FgMfly Social Work 1,233-242

Trotter C (1999) Working With Involuntga Clients London, Sage

Tsui Sum M and CheungFC (2004) 'Gone with the wind: the impacts of managerialismon humanservices' British Journalof Social Work 34,437-442

Tuckman BW (1965) 'Developmental sequencein small groups' PsychologicalBulletin 63, 384-399

21" Century Social Work (2005) 21"' CgRtM Social Work Review Interim 1 -Raort 2005 www. sieswe.org/partnership/InteriniReportApril2OO5. doc

Utting D and VennardJ (2000) What Works with Young Offendersin the Communi Ilford, Barnardo's

Underdown A (1998) Strategiesfor Effective Offender SMRervision:ftort of the HMIP What Works Project London, Home Office

(2002) Committee UNCRC - United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Rikhts of the Child 3 Vt session

UNICEF (1998) JuvenileJustice Innocenti Digest 3, UNICEF, Florence

Universities of Glasgow, Stirling and Strathclyde (2003) Fast Track Hearings Research: Interim RMort

Van de Ven AH and Poole MS (1995) 'Explaining developmentand changein organisations' Academyof Managemmý t Review 20(3) 510-541

Van Wormer K (2002) 'Restorativejustice and social work' Social Work Tod 2(l)

Vanstone M (2000) Tognitive-behavioural work with offenders in the UK: A history of influential endeavour'Howard Journalof Criminal Justice39(2), 171-183

332 VennardJ, SuggD and HeddermanC (1997) ChangingOffenders' Attitudes andBehaviour: What Works? Part I The Use of Cog!ýitive-Behavioural AWroaches with Offenders- Messagesfrom the ResearchHome Office ResearchStudy 171 London, Home Office

Walgrave L (1996) 'Restorative juvenile justice -a way to restore justice in Western Europeansystems' in Asquith S (ed) Children and Young People in Conflict with the Law London, JessicaKingsley

Walgrave L and Mehlbye 1 (1998) Confronting Youth in Europe: Juvenile Crime and JuvenileJustice Copenhagen, AKF

Walker N (1983) 'Childhood and Madness' in Morris A and Giller A (eds) Providing Criminal Justicefor Children London, Arnold

Walklate S (2003) UnderstandingCriminology Buckingham,Open University Press

Wallace J (1999) Safer Communitiesin ScotlandEdinburgh, Scottish Executive

WardhaughJ (2000) 'Down and outers': Fieldwork amongststreet homeless people' in King RD and Wincup E (eds) Doing Researchon Crime And JusticeOxford, Oxford University Press

WargentM (2002) 'The new governanceof probation' Howard Journal41(2), 182-200

WaterhouseL, McGhee J, Whyte B, Loucks N, Kay H and Stewart R (2000) The Evaluation of Children's Hearing in Scotland: Volume 3 Children in Focus Edinburgh, Scottish Executive

Waterhouse L and McGhee J (2005) 'International themes in juvenile justice policy' in McGhee J, Mellon M and Whyte B (eds) Meeting Needs.Addressing Deeds - Working with Young Pegplewho Offend ScotlandNCH

Weinstein J, Whittington C and Leiba T (2003) Collaboration in Social Work Practice London, JessicaKingsley Publishers

Whyte B (1998) 'Rediscoveringjuvenile delinquency' in Lockyer A and Stone FH (eds) JuvenileJustice in ScotlandA&T Clark, Edinburgh

Whyte B (2000) 'Youth justice in Scotland'in Pickford J (ed) Youth Justice:ThM and PracticeCavendish, London

Whyte B (2002) Crime and RestorativeJustice CJSW Briefing paper 4, Edinburgh, Criminal JusticeSocial Work DevelopmentCentre for Scotland

Whyte B (2003a) 'Young and persistent: recent developmentsin youth justice policy and practicein Scotland' Youth Justice3(2) October,74-85

Whyte B (2003b) 'Young people and crime in Scotland' Annex 7 Collection of symposia papersedited by Francis J and Whyte B, June2003, EMMean Youth Involved in Public Care and Youth Justice Sy§tcmswww. ensayouth.cjsw. ac. uk

333 Whyte B (2004a) What Works with Children and Young Pe2ple Involved in Crime? Edinburgh,Criminal JusticeSocial Work DevelopmentCentre for Scotland

Whyte B (2004b) 'Respondingto youth crime in Scotland' British Journalof Social Work 34, 395-411

Wilcox A (2003) 'Evidence-basedyouth justice? Some valuable lessonsfrom an evaluation for the youthjustice board' Youth Justice3(l), 19-33

Williamson H (2005) 'Preventativework in youth justice' in BatemanT andPitts J (eds)The RHP CoMpanionto Youth Justic-eLyme Regis,Russell House Publishing

Worrall A and Mawby RC (2004) 'Intensive projects for prolific/persistent offenders' in Bottoms A, Rex S and Robinson G (eds) Alternatives to Prison: Qptions for an Insecure Societ Cullompton, Willan

Yin RK (1994) CaseStudy Research:Design and MethodsLondon, Sage

Young J (1986) 'The failure of criminology: the need for a radical realism' in Matthews R and Young J (eds)Confronting Crime London, Sage

Young J (1997) 'Left realist criminology:radical in its analysis,realist in its policy' in Maguire R, Morgan R and Reiner R (eds) Oxford Handbookof Criminology Oxford, Clarendon

Youth JusticeBoard (2003) Referral Orders: A Suminga of Researchinto the IssuesRaise in the Introduction of Referral Orders in the Youth Justice SWem London, Youth Justice Board

Youth Justice Board (2004a) Strong Youth Offending Teams Prevent Offending Youth JusticeBoard pressrelease 10/9/04 /YotInspectionReport.html www. youth-justice-board.gov. uk/YouthJusitceBoard/About ...

Youth Justice Board (2004b) Sustainingthe Success:Extending the Guidance- Extending Youth Offending TeamsLondon, Youth JusticeBoard

Zehr H (1990) ChangingLives Ontario, Herald Presscited in Marshall TF (1999) Restorative Justice:An Overview London, Home Office

Zuber-Skeritt0 (ed)(1996) New Directions in Action ResearchLondon, Falmer

334 Appendix 1

Recommendationsof the Youth Crime Review (Scottish Executive 2000; section 2.7)

For early implementation:

" Expansionof the range and availability of effective, quality assessed,community- basedinterventions and programmes for persistentyoung offenderswhich can be used by Reportersand the Hearings " Accessto the new range of interventions and programmesby procurators fiscal and the courts for persistentyoung offendersup to age 18 "A renamingof the Children'sHearings system " Expansionof bail information and supervisionschemes to all 16/17year olds " Expansionof diversionschemes to all 16/17year olds "A detailedexamination of the feasibility of a bridging pilot schemewhich would refer as many 16/17year olds aspossible to the Hearingssystem "A national strategy based on our core objectives which delivers a consistent frameworkfor local activity and addressestraining needs " arrangementsat local level to co-ordinate action on a multi-agency basis to address the needsand deeds of young offenders "a national resourceto disseminatebest practice, commission relevant researchand accreditprogrammes or interventionsfor tackling persistentoffending by children and young people

For medium to longer-termimplementation:

" review the casefor raising the ageof criminal responsibilityto 12 years " developthe rangeof tailored community baseddisposals for under l8s coming before the courts in order to avoid custody " review the use of the fine as a penalty for young offenders to reduce the level of custodyfor fine default " in the light of any bridging pilots, considerthe casefor rolling out thesearrangements acrossScotland.

335 Appendix 2

Ten Point Action Plan (Scottish Executive 2002f)

To tackle persistentoffending:

" Pilot projects for Fast Track Children's Hearingsfor persistentoffenders under 16 years of age "A Youth Court feasibility project for persistentoffenders aged 16 and 17 " Reviewing the scope for using restriction of Liberty Orders, Anti Social Behaviour Ordersand Community ServiceOrders

To promotecommunity safety:

"A SaferScotland police campaign " Spreadingof best practiceand establishing firm standards " Consideringa Scottishwide applicationof a systemof cautionsand warnings 4D Reconfiguringsecure accommodation

To promotethe effectivenessof the system:

"A setof nationalstandards for localauthorities, the criminal justice system and Children's Hearings " Promoteparental responsibility " Increasespeed of referralto the courts

336 Appendix 3

Definition of 'Partnership9 and Falkirk Arrangements

Wbile recognisingthere is somecrossover in typologiesor descriptionsregarding partnership terminology, and that it may not be entirely accurateto talk in terms of partnershipworking as a generic term, this thesis has attempted to transcendthe 'terminological quagmire' (Leathard 2003a:5) by adopting the following terms to describethe essenceof practice in Falkirk.

Multi-professional team is adoptedto describethe Connectproject, it is similar to the terms 'operational-teamdelivery' (Atkinson et al. 2002) and 'interprofessional' working (Ovretveit 1997).

Muld-agency partnerships / arrangements/ working are the generic terms usedto describe the relationshipsand collaborationbetween all levels in Falkirk. Muld-agency networks is the term utilised to describethe relationshipsat the operationallevel.

Inter-agency partnership implies "some degree offusion and melding of relations between services" (Crawford 1997: 119) and is used when describing the Connect,Freagarrach and YJRG arrangements.

Informal collaboradon is utilised for the arrangementsthat have less formal recognition and refers generally to operational level partnerships.Informal networks also operate at the strategiclevel.

Where appropriate,and when talking about particular arrangementsmore specific terms are employed using the typologies of Atkinson et al (2002) and Payne (2000). These are the terms describedin the following diagrammaticmodel of the arrangementsin Falkirk. The diagram simplifies the multi-agency arrangementsthat were apparentin the youth justice system in Falkirk during the period of the casestudy. It highlights to the reader the multi- facetedand multi-layered natureof partnershipworking (Omaji 2003) and the difficulties that are facedin attemptingto conceptualisearrangements in terms of simple typologies.A simple typology doesnot do justice to either the breadth of work that any one type of arrangement covers, the various levels at which they may occur in any one organisationor area, or the crossover of types into different levels or formalised arrangements.In this respect arrangementswould havebeen better describedin a dynamic 3-D model.

The Forth Valley Youth Justice Strategy Group is included in Falldrk as this was the most recognisableand publicised strategy groups. In FaWrk there were a number of strategy groupsrelated to integratedchildren's services,with the Children's Commissionmeant to be the focus for all the various agenciesand comprising senior managers from numerous agenciesincluding health, police, social work, leisure, corporate services, court services, Reporter's service and various voluntary agencies.Despite its central place in children's servicesnot one respondentmentioned the Children's Commissionduring interviews. Of the other strategy groups anti-social behaviour and community safety were included as these were identified as having most relevanceto future youthjustice provision.

337 Falkirk Multi-agency Youth Justice Partnerships

Forth Valley Youth JusticeStrategy Group Strategic coordination s t r F Children's Commission 0 behaviour Community a Anti-social Strategic coordination safety t r Strategic coordination Strategic coordination m e

Falkirk Youth JusticeStrategy Group Strategiccoordination M information sharing a n RestorativeJustice Steering Group FreagarrachSteering Group a Strategic Strategic project coordination project coordination g e m e Youth JusticeReferral Group n Decision making I evaluative t

Connect Freagarrach m Muld-professionalteam Muld-professional team Inter-agencypartnership training and consultation training and consultation 0 p e r a a g Children families & justice e and criminal social work Keyworker n coordination C y

n e t w 0 r k s Young people/ family / carers operationalteams - serviceusers Informal collaboradon

338 Appendix 4 Chronology of Research, Policy and Practice

1995Forth Valley Youth JusticeStrategy Group established (Freagarrachalso established) 2000 'It's a Criminal 2000 - Initial research Waste' Youth Crime proposal (student Review researchernot involved)

June2001 established October2001 research January2001 YLS commences - Cormectfor training (I daya week at first yearobserving team meetingsand strategy groups Ongoing discussionsat whilecompleting research teammeetings training) regardingrole, identity and referrals 2002 Forth Valley 2002 - Criminal Justice National Standards July 2002 original - Strategic Plan 2002-05 Youth Justice managermoved to (containsyouth justice October2002 first year Action Progranune provision) promotedpost - review - 10 point action plan November2002 - new managerappointed January2003 - Youth Court FastTrack March 2003 - and March 2003- Asset Hearings July 2002 to June 2003 conunencewriting pilots formally adoptedas letters changesin access to announced assessmenttool substantial bodies teamcomposition as professional nearly all original team June2003 June 2003 Decider membersmoved on -interviews - June2003 June commence pilot framework to 2005 (12completed before YJRG introduced reasonablystable commenced) team composition for September2003 (thoseinterviewed - research) YouthJustice Referral Groupbecomes Repeatof Tole,identity operational andreferral discussionswith new group 2004 staff January - March 2004 - first additional funding YJRG evaluation June2004 beginfinal linked to - announced analysisand write up anti-socialbehaviour March2004 - new legislation prenisesoccupied August2004 - professionalinterviews conclude

November2004 - PA Consultingbaseline figures

339 March 2005- Forth March 2005 - Valley Youth Justice interviews with young June2005 Hamilton StrategyGroup seminar peopleconclude - (vision for Forth Valley inc Youth Court Pilot PA Consulting) 2005 - focus moves evaluationpublished to developing programmesand joint Mid 2005- Children working re groups and families as case PA managersmodel July 2005- following Consultingupdate. adopted FastTrack Hearings consultation evaluationpublished August 2005- presentationto Falkirk seniormanagement groupre fmdings. Followedby presentationsto a numberof practice teams.

September2005 September2005 - first - integratedchildren's submissionof thesis servicesplan published October2005 - Connectmanager movedto take up post in the newly developedposition of Youth Justice Coordinator

340 Appendix 5

Composite interview schedule

This interview scheduleis a compositeof the various onesusedfor different respondentsto provide the reader with an indication of the broad areasof questions.Not all questionswere askedofall interviewees.

Policy

What do you believe have been the most significant legislative and policy documents changesfor youthjustice in Scotland?

What, if anything,do you considerto be positive aspectsof the Scottishpolicy?

What, if anything,do you considerto be negativeaspects of the Scottishpolicy?

What do you considerto be the main aspectsof the presentpolicy for working with young peoplewho offend in Falkirk?

Would you like to seeanything changing locally9

How do you seethe policy developingin this area? (managers)

Where do you seethe role of Connectin the local youth justice policy9

What are the aims andobjectives / mission statementof Connect?

Partnership arrangements

What do you see as the primary role of childrenand family socialwork within the local workingarrangements?

Who do you considerto be the main partnershipagencies in the Falkirk area?

How is information disseminatedand passed between Connect and other partner agencies?

How satisfiedare you with the amount/ type of /methodsof sharinginformation?

How satisfiedare you with the lines of communicationbetween and within agencies?

Do you believe that other agenciesare satisfiedwith this? - why / not?

How have the working affangmnentsin the Falkirk areachanged since the youth justice projectswere set up?

341 Are they working effectively? - yes- in what way9 - no - why not?

What, if anything,could be improvedupon?

Do you considerthere arepotential areasfor conflict within local partnerships? - where? - what?

Multi-professional teamwork

As Connect is a multi-professionalteam, working in partnershipwith other agencies,I'd like to begin by looking at your experienceof suchwork andyour professionalcontribution to the project.

Canyou briefly describeyour work history / background?

Haveyou worked in a multi-professionalteam previously9 - where? - what other professions?

What are your experiencesof working in a multi-professionalteam?

Canyou describeyour role in Connect?

How is it different to working in a single professionteam?

Do you enjoy this approachto working with young peoplein trouble?

What do you consider,if any, are the major areasfor potential conflict in a multi-professional team?

Do you consider multi-professional teamwork to be effective in youth justice work in Falkirk? - in what ways?

Referral and assessment

Whatare the criteria for attendanceat Connect?

Who refers young peopleto Connect?

Canyou describethe referral process?

Is the referral processat Comect appropriateto the level of risk of reoffending? (risk and need) - yes - how? - no - why not

342 Do you considerthis to be working? - why9 / why not?

How, if at all, could this be improved?

Do you considerthe referralsto be appropriate?

Is the team's workload manageable?

How do you assesspotential clients?

What assessmentmeasures are used at the referral stage?

What measures,if any, are usedto measurerisk of reoffending?

Do you considerthese measures to be useful? - in what way9 / why not?

What measures,if any, are usedto measurerisk of reoffending?

Do you considerthese measures to be useful? - in what way? / why not?

How, if at all, could the assessmentprocess be improved?

Diversion

What role, if any, does Connect have in diverting young people from the criminal justice system?

Do you considerdiversion to be a key part of Connect's services?

How successfuldo you think Connecthas been in diverting young people from the criminal justice system? - in what way / why not?

How, if at all, couldthe diversion role be improved?

How appropriateis the work of Connectfor thoseyoung people diverted from the criminal justice system?

Do you provide regular feedbackabout those casesthat havebeen diverted? - yes how, to who, andwhat type of feedback - could the feedbackbe improved

343 Services

What are the aims andobjectives of the service?

What servicesdo you provide?

How much infortnation do you provide to other organisationsabout the service?

Wheredo you employ theseparticular services?

In what ways are theseservices appropriate to the level of risk of the young peopleyou work with?

How do you think young peopleperceive the service?

How doesthe servicemeet the needsof young people?

How doesthe servicemeet the needsof other organisations?

How much feedbackdo you provide to other organisationsabout the progressof clients?

How, if at all, could the servicesbe improved?

Are there different perceptionsof the sharedobjectives between the professionsin the teaxn?

How, if at all, do the objectives in your agency compare with that of your partner organisations?

Canyou describethe difference in the servicesprovided betweenConnect and Freagarrach?

Effectiveness/ outcomes

What stepsare takento monitor andevaluate the serviceprovided by Connect?

Would you like to seeother methodsof effectivenessincorporated into Connect?

In your opinion how shouldthe effectivenessof work with young peoplein trouble be assessedby Connect? - why?

How much emphasisdoes Connect place on reducingoffending as a measureof success?

What information do you consider it is importantto have if accuratemeasures of reoffending are to be achieved?

Do you have readyaccess to this?

Across the partnershipagencies, how much emphasisis there on reducing offending, as a measureof success?

344 Do you provide regular feedbackof reoffending ratesto other agencies? - how / what / how often / improvements?

How effective do you think the overall initiative in Falkirk has been in reducing youth offending? - pleaseexplain your answer?

How effective do you think Connecthas been in reducingyouth offending? - Pleaseexplain your answer?

What do you considerto be the most effective aspectsof the service?

What do you considerto be the leasteffective parts of the service?

How doesyour servicediffer from that offered by Freagarrach?

Do you consideryour serviceto be any more or less effective than Freagarrach?

345 Appendix 6

Source of Referrals to the Youth Justice Referral Group

(dataextracted from the YJRG databasefor the period 1/9/03to 31/12/04 -n= 178)

Socialwork services 122 (68%) - Children and families 87 (48%) - Criminal justice 30 (17%) - Connect& Freagarrach3 (1.7%) - Leaving care 2 (1.3%)

Young person/ family 12 (12%)

School 10 (6%)

Drugs services 7 (4%)

Health 7 (4%)

Reporter'sservice 4 (2%)

Housing 2 (10/0)

Police 1 (0.50/0)

Others 5 (3%) (various voluntary)

Thesefigures refer to the sourceof the actualreferral. Multi-agency decisionsmay havebeen madeto refer a young person(eg Looked After and AccommodatedReviews), which are not reflectedin the statistics.

346 Appendix 7

Community Justice Accreditation Panel - definition of 'programme'

ScottishCommunity JusticeAccreditation Panel (2004) page2 Guidelines for the Accreditation of Design and Delivga of Community BasedProgrammes www. scotland.gov. uk/Resarch/Doc/099/0000632. doc

A programmeis defined as a plannedseries of activities, deliveredover a specifiedperiod on an individual or group basis,with the following characteristics:

it usesmethods which can be demonstratedto producepositive changein dynamic risk factors such as attitudes,beliefs, behaviour and social circumstances,in order to reduce offending;

it is normally characterisedby a sequenceof activities, designed to achieve clearly definedobjectives that havebeen demonstratedto be effective in reducingoffending;

* it can be replicatedwith otherpeople who have similar patternsof offending; e it has a specifiedand evidence-basedprogramme design;

it is distinguished from wholly individualised intervention by a commitment to a systematicand structuredprovision.

347 Appendix 8

Trogramme' menu

The 'programme' menu describessome of the servicesprovided by Connect in relation to individual andgroupwork with young peopleand their families.

348 oil,

0%.. L.

C)

Ln 11, c r4 M <-=F cd . u 0 4-1 ct C: ý 0 -C . ***0'*

C C 0) L- L. W 2 0 0 0 = o 75 14 - -C " . 0 0 -r- 41 0 u 0 L 4) V, t)60 0 >, c -ýO- r o E :3 0 in Cd 4) u 4) a) r c > (U 0 0 (D (U 'Z3 OA IA 4) co CL = :3 >- t c U E 20-C cu 0 04 r- -f! 0 E C C: :3 - 6 0 0 _i2 0 :30 L- L. x 0 -C (u CD Q- U C 0 I 4-10 V; od -0 4J 0- A= A! r_ -0 . W 41 8 tko a A i:! a v W 0- L- 4) = tv Q tv - C) -i U- U 0 %0 3e C 40 - 1 4-a)- 1!L- CD L- Jv 0 LA VV 0- 2 C:, L- iv to I- ul -Q. CL 0 a 0 C Uc L- - tv 0) 0 rd Ln C W :3 4-j CL (U 4J DO 0 2 41 r- 1) L.9 -he o 11)u T. c *5: c (LL) .5 C%l E CL c tv C C U E 0 0 =12) E a c: 0 0 00 x 0 0 0 0 9- U 5, u u w 0 E0

4- 4, t2 0 E 00 0 3... E 'E r- re-2 ob r. CL erMý 6 -0 -t) -0 "UJ05w5,1. 0 cc 00 41 m2t; 16.0:E0 41mlu 4---v wt .2 F- 41 4L,3c 1. c M 4) 3- 'r-J 33 It,lo u Am-'0 1.0 E ýEiA, 4, "fjg-, r-0' il r- t2 -u 0: 0>mM -m 0E u .2t ý_o uC4.,1- u tn 55, 0 0 cr In- E00 0 .'8 0 41 E 0 m 0> di ll: L 00 0 ýL- .A or- 0 wk- 0 >c= r- ', 3-ý 0 ;r3 u0 CL E e C > W, J9 c26 s.0M +1 01- X L-0 DO W0 CL M r_ mw ci j .30. .2Eh. zu .vZvý. E u E wKg.. :3c- jo r- 12 0 2e -0 tv tv0 'Sw 00w= r3 A , X= w2m ,92. =cZ 90 10 r00c a) -0 ý Z- 0ý :2 4) 04 E "a(Li -v4) -0 m 4) oi U-tui lf ý :2= r- 02 -12L- .-T 0 92. r c: c, - r. -c 000 Z> »E- .2-? ai JO - 0L0* 22 :25 4) CL Zwm02 C du'X. uu0 %. 920 41 o-0 l' L- (A 00 ýý, c 1111 -u 0u E L- aj be 7A 2 bo '0 r- ei. Le . to ba r_ bo r- 0- 00 :2 -Z a. c g2. 4) CM £3,. -0 x r- m0c>0-Cu gxl! 0 9) ý7 Z -a (0 ,r- u .- Ogo in D, -'- Z :k la"5.0 2 _c 0 i 0 La -,. P,41 2E> 1-- 2f - m E00E E00 00 ZU0 E00 >g 113 00e 0 (P-> frj 'm 9 L. 2U 4j M0 -2 u 10 03 t! E r-, 4,0 r- a) , -, ,-0-00>. bo 2: u - :2 ' .2.. 0 -2 EE0> -2 Cl. 01 11 m iv E0W E pU00 L. Eo----r-r- "0 E ci c L,te *EI- c'-uE, -5 VD EfL. E IU 0m E EM -r- E -5 [2 IL l! L40. 12.0.5 1- 2 Co e 0=0 ý L.cEro, 9"000M3: :3- ba r- 12 :2 .- 2 -0 Cm ý.' bo 04 'm JQ00 04 0: CL 0, 3 0 ý: qj bo : - L. > . 0 0 4) " 92. bo 0. 'v (P E 0. M >Uu = tiL -c gl. 4) L- .5 r_ 0 E0-2 - c E Ecu 0 3ý 92.:20Cr, ý, r- 0 *rl 0r*, 9 0 IJr_ > km E -- 4) Y0 :i-Us rä E0 c KmqKa s2%. ., . 00Eum0jr .-:, f tu Ex -v 93 wAEMr> -c -ci b- (L) tu

......

«a 0ý ba k; -24? r- r- -0 -ö - M - r ý mc- r-u m c uj M w il ii :2 c ii - - -0 3, :2 E V) c c w -9 E m -43 t2 E 0 3: bo E . 926 r- 0 ba w = E E Q . 0 r- JL 0 0 CL m ti & 10 Z r- r 0 0 CL r_ 2! -ý 4) T3 V) 0. ,e 0 E-Z, - -0 4 c 0 0. c 06 ä lw, r- 9) 26. cýL- 0 3: 0 = M 2, -0 c c- 5 - CT ai P CL 0 E (U a. ai E 0 < 41 . 9 L- :' C 3ý ý , 0 - - , 0 f . u 0 0 0 - wu m " 0 C 0 c m E 4v A >, 4i ru c2 3 m 2 0 - IA 0 t! u0 " .2 15 0 A :a0 E tf E o «o L- - f tu .2 c, 0 E cl. «Z * 0, 19 ID 2 75 0 c bo - % .2 u C-00  Z 64 :3 , e CL t r_ rio .- 0 is u) 92 CL 0 0 3: c E- - . &0 'u 0 0 ur 0 0 Z t! rj r 0 0 0 L- , >, bo . X 4; 0 m cý tu 0 0 r t025 te Z t r- fe rz c "L' t2 2 E -O s = i 0 &A t E E ý r- o 1- L L- U E 0 = & M s» . 0 U 0 c E 0 t- .- 0 00 JA cu 0 0 «o1- Z #A.X 0 cý f t2 E X 0. E '0 cw- 0 -Z2 u s (3L QJ 0 ýe 12 r m 0.L- W 0 - 4) - 0 4 -2 ý CL 0 0 0 0 r- E - 41 4) 0 C14 bo0 m04 , 1 lu 0 0 0. o Z= 0 u 3: -a 0 E c 41 A J- > E 0 E u E 0 X 2 0 tr E > 4' . d2. a.0 I Le 22 0 li 0 E Q c i EE 0 Ll 0 0 (U ?> 4! ai 0.L- . 0 M 0 gl. w 0 0 ko E Lbo Am ä 0, r- 0 cc . u - L 0 o f 92. E 0 0 0

I

L- -V c0 4) 00 4) je 0E 4' ccck rm m >. 0 -0 4) C) N e w 0 ZU t2 0 0 L4 -2 E ei 10 g. L2 E, EPE m. J$um , 0 LU .u .3i 4) ý, a» j2. > 41 r= 0 0Eih .-Z bo t- LJ L 0 4. ý. 0 -0 00 . «a E 4-, 0 be U &-j2,0 0- L- 2e 141 1 93 V cX-- 2, 1 - , c0c . E- 4=-. -j' -- Z1 9 Zt M 1- Z-0E -0  U .f 4-J . 4- -V u0mX 2ý . CU0>0 0

o 4) AIn 0.0 > 0 c:(L, zm ovu 00 r0 @ Z > 0ý c 10 0 ri2 0 0 K0 l-t-MMOO >. mm. . =O O . u 12 4, L- m b4 m=Cr 0- CL) > L- v X gi 4) (U u*m 41 -- fECx ILIA, -20 4) cg 0r0 m E>X03: *E E UL)1(L) - U0 0 -0 0 F- tu 3: ei 19 ,vM- Ej. 0 4) 0 ,w4,4- 5 MM000 99 r CL 3: 0-mc3.0 m. 0 'u ' d3. te e0 .2-mm ;i r- t; Mk9X 0Am 4, =rU. m4, -0 ig bo rm 000Zm00E r-E3r-o L- W«o >,0