Cuts see YOTs adapt to protect services

The financial crisis has hit youth offending teams hard. Back in 2008 as the credit crunch began, they employed 17,283 people across England and Wales. By 2011, the number had halved to 8,567 employees and is likely to have dropped even further since then.

The reduction in staff is a blunt illustration of the impact of repeated budget cuts on YOTs, and has naturally prompted concerns that the services they provide to young people will suffer. To maintain quality, YOTs have been rethinking the way they provide services, with alternative structures emerging. Here are four distinct ways in which YOTs are adapting.

Integration

Arguably the most popular option is integration. The idea of YOTs merging to create bigger entities is nothing new, but more are considering this option in pursuit of savings on overhead costs and economies of scale. Among the most recent integrators are west London’s tri-borough partnership; West Mercia; and Cheshire West, Halton and Warrington (CWHW).

The latter’s YOT formed on 1 October and is led by Gareth Jones, chair of the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers. While the new entity has maintained the local offices that existed before the merger, the management team has been combined and halved in size. The savings from a smaller management team have been supplemented by economies of scale in purchasing services such as computer systems. As a result, the YOT has been able to absorb a 16 per cent cut in government funding for 2013/14 without making anybody redundant this year.

“We wanted to design a new service where the users wouldn’t notice much difference, if any, and they haven’t,” says Jones. “There have actually been improvements, particularly around the ability to respond to young people who sexually abuse. When you merge and create a bigger entity, you are able to draw expert, highly skilled practitioners from a much bigger footprint. We’re also seeing improvements in parenting programmes, thanks to work done in the old Cheshire West area.”

Disaggregation

One notable exception has done exactly the opposite of integration. Wessex YOT was a partnership that brought together Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton to form the biggest YOT in the country. But last April, the four authorities decided to “disaggregate” and go their own way. Now they deliver youth offending services individually.

The move appears to fly in the face of the financial evidence. A Youth Justice Board report found that “cross-authority” YOTs paid nearly 30 per cent less for youth justice disposals than the average YOT – £1,680 compared to £2,376. In fact, Wessex was paying on average just £1,456 per disposal. Ian Langley, former head of Wessex YOT, says although the move “seems at odds” with trends elsewhere, there was a clear rationale for it – as the service covered too large an area to be able to focus on local issues.

“The key determinant in the disaggregation of Wessex YOT was the ‘localism’ agenda,” he says. “Some of the local authorities in the Wessex YOT partnership wanted greater influence over YOT work in their area. Wessex covered a diverse area including two large cities, an island, some very rural areas and a significant military presence, all with differing local needs and issues.”

Langley adds that all of the teams have now moved to premises that are “far more accessible for the young people and communities they serve” and are benefitting from co-location with children’s services departments. “In my view, these moves would have been unlikely to have occurred without disaggregation,” he says.

Privatisation

Some councils have decided they are not the right people to run youth offending services and are looking at privatisation. Gloucestershire has already made the move. This month, the education and training company Prospects begins an £18m three-year contract to deliver youth support services, including youth offending services, on behalf of the county. Under the deal, the annual youth justice grant of £800,000 will be paid to Prospects and council employees working for the YOT will transfer to the company.

Privatisation is also on the horizon at West Mercia YOT, which was formed in October by the merger of Worcestershire and Herefordshire YOT with Shrop­shire and Telford & Wrekin YOT. This merger has resulted in statutory youth offending services such as pre-sentence reports and planning interventions being merged and run by West Mercia Probation Trust until March 2015.

But this arrangement will be reviewed after 18 months, with services commissioned to a third-party provider from 1 April 2015. All other services previously delivered by the YOT have been defined as “non-core” and are subject to a commissioning process. The entire arrangement is predicted to save 20 per cent in costs in the two years to 2015.

Collaboration

In contrast to privatisation, one local authority has been commissioned to provide some of its youth offending services to a neighbouring council. Since January last year, Rochdale has been managing not only its own youth offending services, but those of neighbouring Bury as well.

The move was prompted partly by the closure of courts and custody suites in Rochdale, which are now based in Bury. As Rochdale had effectively been forced to have a presence there, Bury Council asked Rochdale to provide triage services, court support and management cover on its behalf.

Rochdale will be paid £71,400 for its services during 2013/14, although this is set to increase to £127,000 if additional elements currently under consideration, including early intervention services and community sentences, are rubberstamped by politicians.

Mike Cross, originally youth offending team manager for Rochdale but now also head of the team in Bury, says the move has saved money and ensured that young people in both towns are treated equally. He says the unified triage team and court team deliver a more consistent service and better outcomes for young people.

“It made sense to work together to provide a better service,” he says. “We’re also committed to young people from Bury being dealt with in Bury. They are not going to be asked to cross borders to get services.”