Half of YOT managers report expanded remits

Half of youth offending teams (YOTs) are now run by managers with responsibility for services over and above youth justice, a CYP Now survey reveals.

The situation appears to contravene Youth Justice Board (YJB) guidance, which states that the management of YOTs should remain a discrete function, free from wider responsibilities.

In total, 40 heads of service from across England completed the survey, which highlights a number of emerging trends resulting from local authority responses to swingeing cuts.

It shows that management posts at around one in four YOTs (23 per cent) have changed hands in the last 12 months. The 50 per cent of service chiefs who report having responsibilities beyond youth justice now have additional accountabilities including community safety, substance misuse, antisocial behaviour, teenage pregnancy and sexual health services.

Leaving care services, targeted youth support, troubled families work, youth homelessness and educational welfare are all also cited as other areas of responsibility for which heads of service are now responsible.

Lack of representation
The make-up of YOTs also appears to be under threat; 15 per cent report not having representation from one or more of their statutory partners – police, health, education and probation.

In total, 76.3 full-time equivalent positions have been deleted in the past 12 months, an average of two posts for each of the 37 services that responded to that question.

Tim Bateman, criminologist at the University of Bedfordshire, says a combination of funding cuts and fewer first-time entrants to the youth justice system has in many cases led to restructuring of YOTs, which has diminished their size and influence.

“If YOT managers have reduced spans of control, it leads to a temptation to do one of two things: either downgrade the post or expand the remit,” he says.

“It looks like the choice that is being taken is to expand the remit. It raises the question about the extent to which local authorities may be getting close to not fulfilling their statutory obligations under the Crime and Disorder Act to establish a distinct entity with an identifiable manager.”

Bateman argues that although combining youth offending with other service areas could provide the opportunity to offer more holistic services, there is a real risk that youth justice expertise could be lost or diluted.

“Pre-sentence reports, for example, can have a significant impact on what happens to a young person, but if you have a dilution of specialism at staff or management level, there’s a real risk the quality of court reports could decline,” he says.

“Another more concerning danger is that some of the services being reported by YOT heads are adult services, which risks eroding the defining lines between youth justice and other service provision.”

Meanwhile, the heads of service reported continuing financial pressure on services, with average cuts of 8.71 per cent to budgets in 2012/13, coming on top of other cuts in recent years.

This represents a deeper average cut than the 6.75 per cent reduction in central funding for YOTs announced by the YJB in May, suggesting that YOTs have experienced proportionately higher cuts from other funding partners.

Restructure concerns
While some YOTs said they are experiencing little or no impact as a result of cuts and restructures, other respondents bear out Bateman’s concerns. One says that following a “full reorganisation” of the YOT, the service is “managing”, but adds that “further cuts will mean the service will not be in a position to meet all of its statutory functions”.

Another respondent warns: “A gradual reduction of strategic interest in the YOT partnership has been signalled by reduced attendance at YOT board meetings over the past two years.

“This could become a threat to the YOT’s great strength as a multi-agency partnership, and see a gradual slipping back to the rather more marginal position of youth justice teams pre-2000.”

Another notes that “growing diversification of the YOT manager role means less strategic influence from a youth justice perspective”. And another respondent says: “Some [YOTs] have become far too integrated into children’s services, taking them too far away from the criminal justice arena and the need to focus on the victims and public safety.”

While some local authorities are responding to reductions in funding by aligning YOTs with other services, a number are taking a different course of action.

Survey responses reveal that two possible amalgamations of youth offending teams are in the pipeline – one grouping in the north west, planned for October 2012, and another in West Mercia.

The plans follow in the tracks of the recent tri-borough children’s services arrangement in London involving Hammersmith & Fulham, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea councils.

One respondent says: “Increasing pressures to supply more for less” will place a growing strain on resources unless amalgamation takes place. “I have major concerns for colleagues in various parts of the country who do not have the ability to ‘upsize’,” they add.

Gareth Jones, vice chair of the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers, says YOTs appear to be either assimilating further into children’s services, or amalgamating with other YOTs, in order to keep a more ‘pure model’.
“I think amalgamation is a better route as it increases the expertise rather than diluting it,” he adds. “If you can make economies of scale you can keep the frontline and keep it well supported.”

“The danger of giving youth justice to other senior managers is that they are not necessarily up to date or interested in youth justice. If you think of how far YOTs have come since the 1990s, it seems outrageous to be dismantling something that has worked so well. This is not a national strategy – it is being done in a piecemeal way. It is going to affect a lot of young people and a lot of future victims, quite badly.”