Abstract
The aim of this inspection was to examine the transfer process between youth justice and adult services, in custody and the community, to assess whether practitioners effected a smooth transition for young people/adults.
The inspection team visited YOTs (Youth Offending Teams) and Probation Trusts in six areas of England and Wales, and four Young Offenders Institutions, to establish what practitioners did to help those in custody and under community supervision make an effective transition, at or around the age of 18. The team interviewed young people (aged under 18) and young adults (aged 18 and over), inspected case records, and held discussions with criminal justice practitioners, managers and partnership workers, from health, substance misuse and ETE (Education Training and Employment).
Although the team found examples of individual good practice, work to promote effective transition was not given sufficient attention, and young people/adults were not as involved as they should have been. The relevant transfer protocol is the NOMS/Youth Justice Board (YJB) document Case Transfer Protocol between the YJB and NOMS: Guidance for YOTs and Local Probation Areas/Trusts on Case Transfers, published in 2009. Areas are expected to use this as the benchmark when developing local transfer policies. Most areas had a local protocol, although YOT staff were more aware of these than probation staff.
The report found quite wide variation in the transfer arrangements within the inspected areas. Some transferred automatically at 18, some retained supervision in the YOT for DTOs (Detention and Training Orders), and all areas had flexibility to retain young people at the age of 18 based on a case manager’s assessment, e.g. to finish a programme or engage with a partnership (for example, substance misuse). The inspection found that in almost all cases where a decision had been made to retain a client in youth justice, this decision had a sound basis.
Transition in the community – Although there was usually communication between YOT case managers and probation case managers there was less good communication between partner agencies also working with the young person/adult, e.g. the majority of YOT ETE workers had not spoken to their adult counterpart. Substance misuse services appeared usually to have better communication. Youth health services worked hard to support those turning 18 who were not going to be eligible for help from adult services. Two-thirds of the young people interviewed recalled being told in advance that they could be transferred to probation at 18 but only one-quarter felt that the options had been fully discussed with them.
Transition in custody – There were 17 young adults in the sample. Most young adults said that transfer had been discussed in advance but that they were given little notice of the date of transfer or to which establishment they were transferring. Offender supervisors received information from the sending establishment when the young adult transferred but often struggled to make contact with YOT or probation workers. There had been some disruption to the young adults’ ETE work. There was no sharing of health information about young adults prior to transfer when it involved a physical move from one establishment to another.
Supporting arrangements – Awareness between the YOTs and probation, and between partnership agencies could be substantially improved. Whereas nearly two-thirds of YOT practitioners felt ‘very’ or ‘reasonably’ aware of the work of probation, only one-third of probation practitioners felt similar about the work of YOT. Awareness among partnership agencies of what services were available on the other side was also patchy, although this was being addressed in some areas, e.g. through forum meetings and training opportunities. The role of the seconded Probation Officer was being used in some areas to disseminate information about probation to YOT colleagues.
Conclusion – Good work had been done to develop local arrangements to improve the quality of transition but the effectiveness of this had been diminished as some staff were unaware of what was expected, and managers had insufficient information to know whether the arrangements were working effectively. The inspectors concluded that greater awareness of each other’s roles and more active management oversight, together with improved liaison with and between intervention providers, would have the greatest impact on the quality of transition work.