The London Association for Youth Justice

DRAFT NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR YOUTH JUSTICE

  NOTES FOR PRESENTATION TO

THE LONDON ASSOCIATION FOR YOUTH JUSTICE ON 12.3.02

 INTRODUCTION

 1.      S41 of CDA 1998 which created the Youth Justice Board specifies that one of its functions is ‘to advise the Secretary of State  ….  on the content of any national standards he may see fit to set’. Thus draft standards have been produced by the Board but the final version will presumably be a Home Office document (perhaps published jointly with the Board).

2.      This will constitute the third set of standards for working with those involved in the criminal justice system. However, it will be the first which is specific to young people. New standards for adult offenders are also to be published this year.

3.      Prior to the publication of the first set of standards in 1992, the operation of supervision and other related orders – including breach - was effectively left to the discretion of the agencies with the relevant responsibility. The standards were at the time received with some reservations by at least some practitioners (particularly the 1995 ones which were tighter on breach).

4.      Significantly, previous standards have been inter departmental documents issued jointly by the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Welsh Office. The Home Office is clearly the lead department in respect of the current drafts.

5.      It is also interesting that the standards have got progressively shorter:

1992 – 123 pages

1995 – 64 pages (despite the fact that a new section on bail information was included)

2000 – 30 pages (in draft with a different format) despite the fact that there are a number of areas covered which previous standards did not address.

GENERAL

1.      The standards, despite the fact that they effectively double contact time for most orders, are intended to be delivered ‘within existing youth justice resources.’

2.      They address areas not previously within the remit of standards – specifically:

preventative work;

appropriate adult work;

general assessment (reference was made to specific assessments in previous versions);

work with victims as a general topic (again there was previous reference in terms of specific pieces of work such as preparation of PSRs and where custodial sentences were imposed for violent or sexual offences);

pre court work;

remand and court work.

3.      The standards for the first time address themselves to agencies other than youth         justice / probation staff – for instance L.A Chief Executives, court clerks, police, governors of prison service facilities and managers of secure units.

4.      The shorter nature of the standards reflects the fact that they deal primarily with process, timescales and enforcement rather than issues of good practice – eg the section in the 1995 standards on PSRs accounted for 10 pages including one and a half specific to preparing reports on young offenders. The youth justice standards have rather less than one and a half pages in total on the subject and do not discuss what the content should be other than indicating section headings.

5.      The draft standards as they stand are not totally consistent with existing guidance for some of the interventions introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act

Eg – first contact with young person subject to an action plan order: within one working day of court appearance in draft standards; within 5 working days in draft guidance. Similarly, the wording in relation to breach is different.

Presumably, the Home Office intends to issue further guidance but if it does not which takes priority?

TIMESCALES RELATING TO THE YOTs

1.      Appropriate Adult Work

a)      YOTs to provide A.A. at police station within 2 hours of request from police.

b)      Where YOT provides A.A., she or he must try to contact parents / carers within 24 hours or prior to any court appearance which ever is sooner.

2.      Final Warnings

a)      YOTs must contact those who have received a final warning within 5 working days.

b)      ASSET assessment within 10 working days.

c)      Final warning rehabilitation programme to be capable of completion within 12 weeks.

3.      Court Work / Remands

a)      YOTs must interview the following before they leave court:

Those remanded in custody;

Those whose case is adjourned for reports;

Those subject to a community order or referral order;

Those subject to a DTO.

b)      Those remanded for reports and those subject to orders must all be given appointments prior to leaving court.

4.      Remands to custody / secure accommodation

YOT member must visit within 3 working days.

5.      Court Reports

a)      PSRs must be produced within 14 calendar days of request (all other references are to working days).

b)      No reference to timescale for specific sentence reports.

6.      Court Ordered Interventions

a)      Initial contact for all orders before the end of the next working day after the court appearance.

b)      Draft supervision plan within 5 working days.

c)      Plan to be discussed with YOT manager or delegated person within two weeks of order and by the YOT within one month.

d)      Plans reviewed every 3 months.

e)      Early discharge to be considered at the halfway point.

f)        Missed appointments must be followed up by phone or a visit (apart from parenting orders where, oddly, there is the option of writing a letter) within one working day.

g)      In the event of transfer (to another YOT or probation), case records must be received by new responsible officer within 5 working days.

h)      In case of reparation orders, the victim must be contacted within 5 working days (presumably only where he or she wants reparation.)

7.      Referral Orders

a)      The ‘panel liaison officer’ must meet with young person and carers within 5 working days.

      b)  Initial panel meeting must take place within 15 working days of court hearing.

8.      Detention and Training Orders

a)      ASSET completed within 5 working days if not completed prior to arrival at place of detention.

b)      Planning meeting and initial training plan within 5 working days.

c)      Reviews of plan after first month and then every 3 months.

d)      Plan reviewed within 10 days of transfer to community.

e)      Supervisor to see young person on day of release.

f)        Home visit within 5 days of release.

CONTACT

1.      Remands to custody / secure

Visits at least once a month.

2.      Court Ordered Interventions

a)      Twice a week during first 3 months. One weekly for the next three months and thereafter at least fortnightly.

b)      Home visits at least once a month.

3.      Detention and Training Orders

a)      Visits at least once a month during the custody element for sentences of twelve months or less. For longer sentences, no less than every two months.

b)      During the supervision element, contact at least twice weekly for first three months after transfer and then at least once every ten working days.

c)      Home visits at least once a month.

BREACH ARRANGEMENTS

These are, to say the least, confusing:

1.      Child Safety Orders

If the child fails to comply without reasonable excuse on more than one occasion, the responsible officer must convene a meeting of all involved agencies. The meeting will consider whether breach action is required. If breach is avoided, any further failure to comply must result in immediate breach.

2.      Parenting Orders

In the event of a first unacceptable failure to comply, a formal warning is issued.

      In the event of more than one failure, the responsible officer must meet with the parents to review the order. The review should explore whether there are ways to make the order work, whether it should be returned to court for revocation or amendment or whether the failure should be reported to the police.

3.      Reparation Orders and Action Plan Orders

If there is more than one unacceptable failure to comply with direct reparation, breach action must be initiated within 10 days. (Breach action for indirect reparation is presumably contained within the catch all below at point 6.)

4.      Community Service, Combination Orders and Drug Treatment and Testing Orders

No more than two formal warnings for unacceptable failure can be issued during the course of the order without breach being initiated. (This is tighter than existing breach procedures for CSO and probation which specify that at most two formal warnings within any 12 month period may be given before breach is initiated. It is however looser than the likely provisions in the pending adult standards.)

5.      Referral Orders

a)      If there is more than one unacceptable failure to comply with a direct reparation element of a contract, a review meeting of the panel must be arranged within 10 working days to consider whether the order can be made to work or whether an application should be made to court for breach or revocation.

b)      If there are more than two unacceptable failures to comply with any other part of the contract, a review meeting of the panel must be arranged.

6.      All Other Orders  - including DTOs, reparation orders (where reparation is indirect)  and action plan orders except for a requirement to perform direct reparation)

a)      In the event of one unacceptable failure, a formal warning must be issued or breach action taken.

b)      ‘Breach action must be initiated within 10 working days of the most recent failure to comply, if the child or young offender receives more than two formal warnings during a three month period’ (whatever that means). 

It should be noted that whatever (b) means, it constitutes a loosening of breach procedures as they currently stand for supervision and probation orders (that is, breach required for more than two failures within a twelve month period).

SOME OTHER ISSUES (Randomly Selected)

1.      A minimum of 2.5% of the YOTs total budget is to be spent on preventive work excluding work with those who have been reprimanded or finally warned. On the one hand, this appears a tokenistic amount; on the other, it is not clear on what the money might be appropriately spent and it seems likely that preventive work would be more appropriately funded by other agencies.

2.      The standards appear confused over the fact that parents when they attend police stations are acting as appropriate adults. Parents and appropriate adults are contrasted throughout the relevant standard.

3.      There is a reference to 17 year olds and their right to an appropriate adult which is incomprehensible (contrary to law, logic and grammar) (point 2.7).

4.      ‘Reprimands and final warnings must only be given in the presence of the offender’s parents or primary carer.’ But, ‘if the offender is aged 16 or under and the parents or primary carer are unavailable, the reprimand or final warning must be given in the presence of an appropriate adult.’ Two contradictory ‘musts’ and what about 17 year olds. (point 5.1)

5.      Specific sentence reports are to have the same format as PSRs – which includes a proposal. It is therefore not clear what the difference is.

6.      The minimum levels of contact appear to apply to orders where they make no sense eg attendance centre orders or reparation orders (depending on the number of hours and work involved).  Similar comments apply to requirement to have a session dealing with offending behaviour and (in the case of attendance centre orders) having a supervision plan which involves parental involvement, substance misuse, education, training or employment, work to address any previous experience of discrimination and work to reduce risk to self or the community. 

7.      For most probation type disposals – community service, combination orders and drug treatment and testing orders – adult standards apply except for breach arrangements. (Breach arrangements are outlined above.)  Probation orders themselves are not however specifically included in the list and it therefore appears that the general standards for court ordered interventions and the general standards for breach apply.

 Tim Bateman 23.2.00