Case management in context
Content
Introduction
Assessment
Planning
Implementation and delivery
Reviewing
Back to homepage Next section: Desistance
Introduction
The original YOT model was designed to offer a standard response to children who offend. Over the last 10 years, however, it has evolved to respond to local need and oversight arrangements. A range of models now operate across approximately 150 YOTs in England and Wales, ranging from distinct youth offending teams to YOT functions embedded within children’s services and early help. While inspections do not favour one type of model over another, there are clear advantages to having access to children’s services, especially for those with local authority looked after child status, and to early help in order to prevent children entering the youth justice system in the first place. However, the issues related to risk of harm and safety and wellbeing presented by these children need to remain a core part of their supervision.
The ‘child first’ approach to youth justice is reinforced by a desistance or strengths-based method of working with children. Rather than supervision that focuses on a child’s deficits, or risks, youth justice practitioners promote a child’s strengths, and therefore self-esteem, as a way of preventing future offending. There is some debate about the relative efficacy of the risk versus strengths-based models of delivery, with supporters siding with one or the other. In truth, both approaches have merit and a role to play.1
Youth justice services fully recognise the impact of early childhood trauma on children and the link it may have to offending.2 Trauma-informed practice tends to form the bedrock of supervisory practice in youth justice services, as a result.
There is now more recognition of, and response to, the experiences of harm children face outside their families, in their local community and in their schools. Children are also exposed to harm online, which can feature violence and abuse. Contextual safeguarding, as it is now known, recognises that children are vulnerable to abuse beyond their front doors and this concept is becoming increasingly embedded in supervisory practice.3
Restorative justice practices are also well-embedded in approaches to youth justice. Referral orders have restorative justice at their core, providing the child who has offended and the victim of the crime with an opportunity to hear the other’s perspective as a form of reparation.
Services are now configured to address the complexities and common conditions affecting children in the youth justice system, such as neurodiversity. Local partnerships are more familiar with the impacts of deprivation and neglect, the prevalence and overrepresentation of children who are looked after, and the continued racial disparity in the system.
Case management in YOTs is shared across the partnership and is not the sole responsibility of one single agency.
Each YOT is expected to manage each case by engaging the child, parents and carers, taking account of each child’s diverse needs. They must establish a meaningful, trusting relationship, promote engagement with sentence requirements and work towards desistance from crime. The children in the youth justice system are some of the most vulnerable in our society. They may have mental health issues, learning disabilities, and/or other presenting concerns. Many also have experience of the care system.
Case managers are required to work in partnership with the other statutory agencies to produce a plan from a comprehensive assessment. This should enable the child to adopt a pro-social identity and promote desistance from offending. It should also protect the child’s safety and wellbeing, as well as the public. Case managers must review cases as required to reflect significant changes in the child’s circumstances.
The case manager is required to coordinate interventions with all the relevant specialists and/or agencies and be clear about what is expected of them. They must also consider the child’s broader vulnerabilities and/or safeguarding. They must recognise the impact of the public/social context on children’s lives, and their safety. This contextual safeguarding approach identifies and responds to harm and abuse posed to children outside their home, either from adults or other children.
When we inspect the work done in individual post-court youth cases, we apply our standards and look specifically at:
Assessment
Assessment is an integral part of case management. Theoretical models and research findings consistently highlight the importance of understanding the individual child’s characteristics. Assessment should pay attention to the child’s wider familial and societal context and engage parents/carers and significant others as appropriate. It should identify factors linked to desistance, safety and wellbeing, and risks to others, as well as strengths and protective factors. Assessment should generate a holistic picture of the child and the interactions between all of these factors. It is important to ensure that a sufficiently comprehensive analysis of the different factors affecting the child’s life is conducted.
The process of assessment is as important as the outcome. Practitioners should use a wide range of sources of information, including previous records and assessments and, in appropriate cases, information gained from other agencies or people who know the child. This information should include assessments and plans from early help or children’s social care, emotional mental health and wellbeing providers, and education and health care services. This helps to build a rounded view of the child, capturing their full range of risks and needs.
Research has highlighted the importance of engagement, not passive involvement, with the child. Engaging the child in the process of assessment provides an opportunity for them to feel listened to, meaningfully involved and supported in working out what they want to achieve. Giving the child a voice and treating them with respect helps to build the one-to-one trusting personal relationships that can be a powerful vehicle for change.
We inspect cases to judge whether assessment is well-informed, analytical and personalised, actively involving the child and their parents/carers. See Standard 2.1 of the Standards for inspecting youth offending services.
Planning
There must be a strong connection between assessment and planning. The planning process should specify what is to be done about the needs and risks identified. The well-established principle of responsiveness requires that interventions and activities are delivered so that they are accessible to the individual child and optimise their ability to change, encouraging full participation. One-size-fits-all processes and interventions will not work.
Planning should be set in the wider familial and social context of the child, involving parents/carers and significant others as appropriate. Key practitioners working across different agencies should also be involved where necessary, making appropriate links to any other ongoing work within these agencies. Research further demonstrates the importance of services and interventions being multi-modal, holistic and sequenced, with strengths and protective factors being reinforced and developed.
Objectives in the plan should be specific and measurable so that progress can be monitored. They must also be achievable, realistic, and have clear timescales. Where necessary, the plan should be broken down into a smaller number of ‘steps’ with realistic, short-term objectives. The child may have multiple complex problems that cannot sensibly be tackled all at once, and they may disengage if the work plan is over-ambitious.
As with assessment, a plan that the child does not sufficiently understand or agree with is unlikely to be implemented. Practitioners should make efforts to engage the child as an active participant and help them to set goals. Research evidence suggests that when the child feels engaged, and the plan is drawn up collaboratively, they will be more likely to have a direct investment in achieving its outcomes. The language in the plan should be clear and easily understood by the child and their parents or carers. It should avoid phrases that label the child in a way that confirms an offending identity.
When we inspect a case, we judge whether the planning is well-informed, holistic and personalised, actively involving the child and their parents/carers. See Standard 2.2 of the Standards for inspecting youth offending services.
Implementation and delivery
The child should experience an integrated approach between different agencies and the YOT, with relationships, interventions and services combining holistically to address their individual risks and needs. Service delivery should reflect the child’s wider familial and social context, and sufficient emphasis should be given to building on strengths and enhancing protective factors. Staff need to remain responsive to the child, so that trusting relationships continue to be built and delivery remains tailored to the individual. If the child receives consistent and integrated support, particularly at critical times, through an approach that is engaging, supportive and motivating, they are more likely to desist from offending.
The desistance literature promotes the importance of positive, non-judgemental and trusting relationships between practitioners and the child. Wherever possible, practitioners should reinforce desired behaviours and use natural opportunities to demonstrate and teach thinking and behavioural skills. Practitioners must promote compliance, including helping the child to recognise the positive changes and benefits that result from a non-offending lifestyle. Any instances of non-compliance should be dealt with in a proportionate, fair and transparent manner.
When we inspect a case, we judge whether high-quality, well-focused, personalised and coordinated services are delivered, engaging and assisting the child. See Standard 2.3 of the Standards for inspecting youth offending services.
Reviewing
Reviewing progress is another integral part of service delivery. It recognises that a child’s risks, needs, protective factors and circumstances can change over time. The reviewing process should be used to: (i) analyse new information (including information from other practitioners and agencies); (ii) verify changes in a child’s behaviour; (iii) adapt or change actions that are completed or no longer appropriate; and (iv) explore the full range of available resources. It is also a critical opportunity to recognise and record progress. YOTs will have local arrangements in place for reviewing cases, but we expect reviewing to be an ongoing process. Cases should be reviewed when a significant event occurs or within a six-month timeframe.
Changes in factors related to the child’s safety and wellbeing and/or risk of harm to others should be emphasised. Practitioners also need to be alert to the possibility of changes in the child’s life that could impact on their engagement. They should consider the views of parents/carers and significant others as appropriate. Work plans must be adapted to any change in the assessment. Any obstacles to compliance and engagement should be identified and discussed, with strategies developed to enable the child to fully engage.
As with planning, efforts should be made to engage the child as an active participant in the reviewing process, helping them to recognise and celebrate their achievements, to review and refresh their goals towards desistance and to take further charge of their own lives.
We inspect cases to judge whether reviewing of progress is well-informed, analytical and personalised, actively involving the child and their parents/carers. See Standard 2.4 of the Standards for inspecting youth offending services.
[1] Maruna, S. and Mann, R. (2019). ‘Reconciling ‘desistance’ and ‘what works’’. Academic Insights, 2019/1. HM Inspectorate of Probation.
[2] McCarten, K.F. (2020). ‘Trauma-informed practice’. Academic Insights, 2020/05. HM Inspectorate of Probation.
[3] Firmin, C. (2020). ‘Contextual safeguarding’. Academic Insights, 2020/07. HM Inspectorate of Probation.
