‘Who works’ rather than ‘what works’ in youth justice?

1. ‘Who works’ rather than ‘what works’ in youth justice? Ali Wigzell

2. Importance of relationships has long been recognised. • Majority of studies concerning the impact of supervisory relationships lie in the adult offending field. (E.g. Rex, 1999; Healy, 2012; Wood et al, 2013). • But evidence from psychotherapy is that although there are intervention models that are more effective with particular groups, the most important factor (within the practitioner’s control) to success is the quality of the relationship between the client and practitioner (McNeill et al, 2005). • Working alliance is ‘defined as where the therapist and client share: agreement on overall goals; agreement on tasks to realise those goals; and a bond of mutual respect and trust’ (McNeill et al, 2005: 24).

3. Intensive Supervision & Surveillance: many managers perceived quality of relationships to be ‘most important’ factor; ‘transformative effect’ of bond (Youth Justice Board, 2004; Gray, 2013). • Intensive Fostering (IF) – interviewees said that practitioner/carer relationships were central to the process of change for over half of the young people. (Biehal et al, 2010:11). • Survey of 421 YOT practitioner found that 94% believed that developing a positive worker – young person relationship was necessary for effective engagement (Ipsos MORI, 2010: 24) • Interviews with 52 girls found that the principal determinant of their assessment of the youth offending team (YOT) intervention was the quality of relationship with their YOT worker (Sharpe, 2012: 134-5) • Further evidence of the centrality of young person – worker relationships can be found in youth custody (Ofsted, 2010), resettlement programmes (Ipsos Mori, 2010: 25-54; Cooper et al., 2007) and voluntary sector schemes (Knight, 2010: 23). • Practice literature across social work, youth work, youth justice (Prior and Mason, 2008, 2010)

4. ‘The process of desistance can be exceptionally demanding, demoralising and lonely’ (Gray, 2013) • ‘Re-labelling’ (Maruna and LeBel, 2010; Maruna, 2001) – ‘I am a good person at heart and I can stop offending’ • Encouraging normative compliance (McNeill and Robinson, 2013 cited in Lewis, 2014) • Psychological growth (Miller, cited in Trevithick, 2005) • Supporting motivation (Prior and Mason, 2008) • Attachment theory – developing a ‘corrective relationship’ (Trevithick, 2005) • More important during adolescence? – ‘a period of malleability’ (McNeill, 2006)

5. ‘…good relationships alone will not be enough to bring about change’ (McNeill et al., 2005: 39); • Agency – it is the individual’s decision to stop committing crime, although relationships can support and motivate desistance efforts; • The supervisory relationship ‘cannot act as a surrogate for tackling structural problems in society’ (Burnett and McNeill, 2005); • Relationships with the offender’s wider social network are key (Burnett, 2007; McNeill, 2006; McNeill, 2009); • But the effectiveness of every part of process, relies on a good relationship.

6. Mutual respect (Prior and Mason, 2010); • Trust (Sharpe, 2012; Prior and Mason, 2010; Ipsos MORI, 2010); • Optimism and belief in capacity to change (Lewis, 2014); • Being treated as a ‘human being’, not an object (Liebrich, 1994; Lewis, 2014); • Warmth, genuineness, showing an interest (Trevithick, 2005); • Being listened to (Appleton, 2010, cited in Lewis, 2014); • Participative – shared goals (McNeill and Batchelor, 2004); • Supportive (and opportunities to provide support); • ‘Not just talking a room’ (Sharpe, 2012); • Empathy (Prior and Mason, 2010; Cherry, 2012); and • Pro-social (Trotter, 1999).

7. A ‘therapeutic case management approach’ – consistency, continuity, consolidation, commitment, and support with compliance (McNeill et al, 2005) • One key worker that coordinates all aspects of intervention (Prior and Mason, 2008; McNeill et al, 2005) • Continuity of worker during involvement with YOT? • 2010 survey of 421 YOT practitioners – only 37% said that young people stayed with same worker on subsequent orders • Intensity of contact with workers – frequency (Wilson, 2012) and duration of meetings? • Matching workers and young people on basis of shared characteristics (Ipsos MORI, 2010; Sharpe, 2012; Gray, 2013), but little done in practice. • Consulting young people during allocation/ recruitment? • Training and recruitment?

8. Does this resonate with your experiences? • Thicker soup – are such skills and relationships now even more important? • Do different groups/ young people value particular practitioner qualities/ supervisory approaches? Do some aspects resonate more strongly? • How do you establish good relationships? Importance of duration of contact, intensity? • Natural skill or can one be trained? Does training background affect ability to build relationships? • Are such relationships adversely affected by time-limited nature of supervision? • Is it in young people’s best interests to have a variety of specialists involved rather than one consistent worker?

9. References 1 • Biehal, N., Ellison, S., Sinclair, I., Randerson, C., Richards, A. Mallon, S., Kay, C., Green, J., Bonin, E. and Beecham, J. (2010) A Report on the Intensive Fostering Pilot Programme, Youth Justice Board, London • Bonta J, Rugge T, Scott T-L, Bourgon G, and Yessine A K, (2008) ‘Exploring the Black Box of Community Supervision’, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47:3, pp248-270 • Burnett R and McNeill F (2005) ‘The place of the officer-offender relationship in assisting offenders to desist from crime’, Probation Journal, 52: 3, 221-242 • Cherry, C. (2010) Transforming Behaviour: Pro-social modelling in practice - A Handbook for Practitioners and Managers second edition), Devon Willan Publishing • Healy D (2012) ‘Advise, Assist and Befriend: Can Probation Supervision Support Desistance?’ Social Policy & Administration, 46: 4, 377–394 • Ipsos MORI (2010) Evaluation of the London Youth Reducing Reoffending Programme (Daedalus): Emerging findings [accessed via: http://www.londoncjp.gov.uk/publications/2010_06_02_LYRRPEmergingFindingsRpt.pdf (16/12/12)] • Leibrich J (1994) ‘What do offenders say about supervision and going straight?’ Federal probation, 58:2, 41-46 • Lewis, S (2014) ‘Learning from success and failure: Deconstructing the working relationship within probation practice and exploring its impact on probationers, using a collaborative approach’, Probation Journal, 61: 2, pp. 161-175

10. References 2 • Maruna S (2001) Making Good: How Ex-convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives, Washington: American Psychological Association • Maruna S and La Bel T (2010) ‘The desistance paradigm in correctional practice: from programmes to lives’ in F. McNeill, P. Raynor and C. Trotter (eds.) Offender Supervision: New directions in theory, research and practice, Oxon: Willan Publishing • McNeil, F. Batchelor, S. Burnett, R. and Knox, J (2005) 21st Century Social Work: Reducing Re-offending: Key Practice Skills, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive • McNeill, F. and Batchelor, S. (2004) Persistent Offending by Young People: Developing Practice, Issues in Community and Criminal Justice, Monograph 3 • Moore, R. Gray, E. Roberts, C. Taylor, E. and the Youth Justice Board (2004) ISSP: the initial report - summary, London: Youth Justice Board • Prior D and Mason, P (2010) ‘A Different Kind of Evidence? Looking for ‘What Works’ in Engaging Young Offenders’, Youth Justice, 10: 3, pp211-226 • Prior, D. and Mason, P (2008) Engaging Young People Who Offend, London: Youth Justice Board

11. References 3 • Rex S (1999) 'Desistance from Offending: Experiences of Probation', Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 38: 4, 366-383 • Sharpe, G. (2012) Offending Girls: Young Women and Youth Justice, Oxon: Routledge • Trotter, C (1999) Working with Involuntary Clients: a guide to practice, London: SAGE publications • Wilson, E (2013) Youth Justice Interventions – findings from the Juvenile Cohort Study (JCS), Ministry of Justice Analytical Series, 2013 (available via: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research-and-analysis/moj [10.01.2014)]