Youth justice vision and strategy: consultation - summary report

Consultation with the adult workforce or adults with an interest in the justice system

Method

Survey

The Scottish Government Youth Justice Team designed four questions for key stakeholders in the youth justice and related sectors to respond to. The full survey is attached in Appendix 1. This survey was then created in Qualtrics online survey software and hosted by CYCJ. The survey was live between June 22 and August 31, 2020.

Survey responses were downloaded by CYCJ and analysed using NVivo software (version 11).

Participants

A completed response was defined as a response in which the participant completed the consent section, and answered at least one of the four questions posed. There were 124 completed responses, of which 123 were completed online and one was emailed in word format.

As the survey was completely anonymous there is no demographic or organisational information available for analysis.

Findings

1) Top three priorities over the next two years

Many respondents commented that they found it hard to only select three priorities, and some felt that all of the areas mentioned should be a priority for government. While the exercise still does help to highlight the most pressing priorities, this difficulty may mean that other priorities are underestimated by the findings presented here.

Table 1 highlights the most frequently occurring priorities. At least one priority was selected by 124 participants. One participant selected only one priority, three selected two, 119 selected three, and one did not select three but ranked all of the priorities in order (in this instance only the top three priorities have been counted in order to ensure equity with other participants). See Appendix 1 for the full description of the priorities as provided in the survey.

Table 1: Top 3 priorities (n=124)

Priority	No. of responses	% of participants
Mental Health	74	60%
Whole Systems Approach	58	47%
Speech, Language & Communication Needs	41	33%
16 and 17 year olds	40	32%
Data and Evidence	25	20%
Other	11	9%

In the 'other' category the most common responses (five) related to priorities already mentioned, or were statements qualifying their responses. Of previously unmentioned suggestions, the most frequent responses (two each) were: gender; trauma-informed approaches; early intervention; Restorative Justice; and child criminal exploitation (CCE).

2) The main barriers to high quality youth justice provision in Scotland; and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these.

A total of 75 participants provided a written response to this question. The main barrier identified was the need for more investment and resources (24 responses) in youth justice and related provision. This was often mentioned in relation to services that might help prevent offending behaviours, or respond at an early stage. Mental health provision was also often referenced:

"Negative impact of austerity on local authority youth justice budgets. Negative impact of austerity on other services, CAMHS in particular, meaning referrals cannot be acted on in a reasonable timeframe."

"Continued cuts to the real term funding experienced by local authorities has up-stream and frontline implications for youth justice services. These cuts have implications on the scale, breadth and intensity of the services available when children come into conflict with the law."

"In particular the third sector is disadvantaged by poor commissioning and procurement - high quality, effective, youth justice provision has been discontinued or reduced due to funding constraints/cuts despite having been established and impacting on youth justice outcomes and positive futures for young people."

Related to issues of funding and resources was a lack of standard or consistent provision across the country, mentioned by eight respondents, and resulting in what was termed a postcode lottery:

"Differences in provision due to funding/resource issues. For example, if local CJA (and other) partnerships prioritise youth justice then resources may be available - if not, they aren't. This causes disparity of provision 'post code lottery'."

"Lack of a consistent approach nationally. Resources available vary, young people should receive a consistent service no matter where they are in Scotland."

The importance of multi-agency working in youth justice approach was evident, but the challenges and complexities in creating and sustaining successful and effective multi-agency partnerships were mentioned by 16 respondents, with 'siloed' working a frequent barrier, or a lack of alignment in understanding, values and approaches. Information-sharing, and GDPR, were also perceived to be barriers:

"There are some really good examples of cooperation and information sharing across and within organisations that ensure that there is a holistic approach to young people at risk or involved in offending. However, there are still barriers and 'protectionism' in some instances exacerbated by GDPR."

"Consistent approach within agencies and lack of understanding around whole system approach/how best to support young people in conflict with the law, acknowledging them as children and supporting their unmet needs."

"All agencies currently act as single agencies - fulfilling their single organisational demands - which often conflict with the idea and practice of high quality youth justice provision."

Other responses described gaps or inadequacies in provision, such as in mental health and trauma support (mentioned by 14 responses) or prevention and early intervention (nine responses):

"Poor, late, or no access to appropriate therapeutic services. It has been known for many years that psychological trauma is a significant factor in relation to many cases of youth offending. Trauma has become a well talked about topic in the last few years, as has trauma-informed services. Very, very few services really work in a trauma-informed way."

"Impact of trauma: young people involved in offending have a high incidence of experience of trauma. It is likely the experience of living through the pandemic is itself traumatic, while also contributing to other environmental factors which may exacerbate trauma, such as isolation, access to family and friends, bereavement, stress, etc."

"Lack of dedicated, holistic services focusing not only on youth and restorative justice, but also prevention centred around formal and informal statutory education, positive mental and physical health and wellbeing, access to meaningful and stimulating post school employability and training opportunities, which fully recognise the importance of young people as distinct individuals, as well as a unique social grouping."

"There is a focus on short-term fixes when problems arise rather than the vision for early intervention with long-term view to prevent major problems arising."

Structural inequalities such as poverty, racism and discrimination were also noted as barriers to effective youth justice provision (eight responses):

"Availability of child and risk appropriate care, support and services; and disproportionate barriers to access for certain groups (those in poverty, gender specific, BAME, from different geographical areas of Scotland, with additional support needs e.g. SLCN, learning disabilities and mental health needs)."

"Inadequate action against structural issues that ensure a significant number of Scotland's children are destined for the justice system."

Cultural and attitudinal barriers (both public and organisational) were believed to pose particular problems for youth justice (six responses):

"Negative labelling/targeting/stigmatising of young people."

"Some workers having a punitive and uninformed attitude towards young people in conflict with the law."

"Barriers are that all partners do not have the same view of how young people should be dealt with especially when it comes to a high profile or serious offence. I cannot foresee any changes to individuals' attitudes towards young people and offending."

Often related to the attitudinal barriers, and the way that young people were viewed, was a lack of meaningful and genuine participation for children and young people in the decisions that affect them (six responses):

"Cultural barriers - adults retain control and prescribe solutions."

"Failure to truly listen to children and young people, and to enable their participation in developing the care, support and services intended to be for their benefit (at an individual, community and societal level)."

Partly related to funding and resources was a need for more long-term and community youth work provision (six responses):

"Not having enough youth/community based/involved projects which run on a long-term basis and engage with young people going through the youth justice system on a long-term basis."

"Premature termination of involvement (quicker turnover times), especially in cases of voluntary engagement."

A lack of available alternatives to custody was mentioned by six respondents:

"Social change will be required in order to explore and use community based alternatives to incarceration."

"Having real alternatives to 'locking people up'."

Other barriers mentioned included: youth justice being afforded a lower 'status' than other areas and not treating all under 18s as children (both five responses) and: a cluttered policy and legislative landscape; reduced skills and expertise in youth justice as a result of lower prioritisation; and a need for more diversion (four responses each).

The COVID-19 pandemic was mainly perceived to exacerbate existing barriers, rather than necessarily being a barrier in its own right. Funding and resources, inequalities, mental health issues, participation and delays in the justice process were all felt to be negatively affected by the pandemic:

"Access to Mental Health support for young people caught up in the justice system.

COVID-19 may exacerbate many mental health issues and anxieties."

"Barriers are exacerbated during COVID-19: as children have been refused access to justice at their own decision-making forums and decisions being taken on their lives without them participating at all."

"COVID-19 is destined to embed social inequalities and disadvantage. Only through a determined focus on universal service provision and mitigating the consequences upon the most vulnerable groups will progress towards a fairer youth justice system be realised."

"COVID-19 has also highlighted that many families are digitally excluded, and it can result in issues for delivering services and continuity of support. While face-to-face services are limited, partners have relied on digital solutions to continue to provide support, and while this is possible for most organisations, many families are unable to engage in this way. COVID-19 has highlighted issues for many families around poverty and digital inclusion."

While there were a few COVID-specific issues raised, such as not being able to meet children face-to-face, and services that had been forced to close, there were also opportunities that had arisen from the pandemic, such as: digital engagement and participation; exploring more creative ways of working; and providing the catalyst to reflect and rethink how services are delivered:

"COVID-19 gives us an opportunity to re-think - it has already acted to enable the redesign of services and provision such as remote medical consultation. The technology has existed for decades but without the 'burning platform' that COVID-19 provided, was resisted as a serious service design option. This principle stands for all systems and services."

"All of this will be affected negatively by COVID-19, however, there have been some positives e.g. the increased use of VC for meetings which has meant they are more easily arranged and attended with many benefits."

"More creative ways of working have been developed (through necessity) which may compliment more creative ways of delivering YJ intervention."

3) Overcoming barriers and how organisations can support this

A total of 70 participants provided a written response to this question, although there was considerable variation in responses. The most common response (12 responses) was that specific interventions were needed, but these were wide-ranging and included: trauma-informed approaches; family support services; supported accommodation; support in prison; gender-based and inclusive approaches; communication support models; and restorative approaches etc.

Solutions were also perceived as lying within strong partnerships and multi-disciplinary approaches (11 responses):

"I think the main benefits overall would come from better joined up working/cooperation/contact, between local services."

"Continued/enhanced engagement in relevant partnerships."

"Partnership working and developing resources and services that fit the needs of the individual."

Funding and investment generally was also seen as crucial for overcoming the barriers identified ten responses), and investing specifically in prevention and early intervention was mentioned by nine respondents:

"More money to be accessible for services to be able to cope with the demands on social services."

"Consistent funding/resourcing - better monitoring of how money is spent (value/impact)."

"Engage & invest in young people & take a Scotland wide prevention approach - in youth work, transformative leadership & re connection opportunities where young people find their purpose/ value. Mentoring and long term supports are essential to help young people."

"Re-routing funds to more early intervention work."

Many of these comments about funding and investment related to a more radical realignment of funds, and seven participants felt that more radical or wholesale system change was needed to overcome the barriers:

"Radical change is needed to the taxation and economic infrastructure of the country. This needs to come from national government."

"Adequate funding and support, at both local and national level, as well as the genuine motivation to create a long overdue radical, visionary youth services sector for Scotland - building on examples of previous good practice nationally and internationally."

"Re-design to prevent children entering the justice system or if they enter, partners wrap around the child and the family to provide sustainable support to help them build resilience and capacity to change their trajectory. Also to design a justice system that understands brain development, the impact of trauma on brain development and the prevalence of speech, language and communication difficulties in this population."

Creating a system that protected children's rights was mentioned by seven respondents and five separately mentioned treating all under 18s as children:

"Our organisation is keen to be involved in direct talks and outreach sessions with schools and youth groups to provide information to young people directly about children's rights and child law including providing information on child protection law, procedures and policies and where to seek help."

"To be driven by the rights of the child and to be designed to respond quickly, intervene early and divert from prosecution."

"Promoting children's rights and supporting them to understand these."

"We need legislative change to place all under 18s as children which will reduce complexity, ensure everyone attributes all rights to all children (hopefully) and be clearer for legal process while still in current system."

Exploring commissioning and funding mechanisms for the third sector was also seen as essential for ensuring the breadth of services necessary for an effective youth justice system:

"Effective and successful programmes have come and gone due to the lack of support which mainly comes from grants or trust. If Gov were to look at third sector organisations to invest in to support the council staff it might be more effective. Look at other countries with successful models."

"Direct funding to Scottish based community organisations so services available to support young people in conflict with the law are not based on individual commissioning and procurement practices but best practice."

Other ways to overcome the barriers were suggested as: maximising participation; improving data and evidence; and developing alternatives to custody (all six responses each).

4) Other Considerations

Fifty eight participants provided a written response to this question although there was little new offered here that had not been covered already in the survey. The most common response (nine responses) was about maximising participation by hearing and understanding young people's views and involving them in the development of the strategy and in decision-making:

"Ensure that all stakeholders are equally valued. Co-production is essential with service users."

"I think that young people need to understand the process better. The strategy should be flexible and meaningful to the people it impacts, this would also ensure greater use and understanding of the strategy and its implementation for local authorities and front line workers who should use it as a guidance tool."

"Speak to the young people and ask where they feel they have been let down by the system."

Eight respondents referred to the need for radical, or at least more rapid change, with a focus on action and implementation:

"Implementation - start with making it happen, take action. Learn from other reviews and take action and at pace."

"We need to be radical for change and create a swifter change in practice that results in a real knock on effect in terms of future custody rates in prisons."

"We believe that to improve Scottish Youth Justice System it is not enough to tackle only one area of concern. Reducing detention of children and young people, extending the referral age to the SCRA to 18 years of age, early intervention approach, support to victims of crime and multi-agency affective collaboration are all necessary elements for achieving improvements in the Scottish Youth Justice System."

A need to focus on prevention and early intervention was mentioned again by six respondents and trauma-informed and mental health provision; addressing public attitudes and organisational culture; and greater investment were each mentioned by five respondents.