Practising in a Context of Ambivalence: The Challenge for Youth Justice Workers

Abstract

Practitioners have always recognised those they work with as young people in need as well as offenders. The political imperative to be 'tough on crime' has distorted this perception, while managerialist approaches, believing that accountability demands minimal discretion, have made it harder for practitioners to do justice to the diversity of individuals' circumstances. This article suggests that there is no inherent contradiction between good, consistent service delivery and wide (though not unbounded) discretion. Arguing that best practice requires both high accountability and wide discretion, it warns that an uncritical implementation of National Standards could lead to unfair and ineffective practice.

Janus‐Faced Youth Justice Work and the Transformation of Accountability

“…The YJB also held funds for evaluative research, and the ‘Key Elements of Effective Practice’ documents derived from YJB‐commissioned research and research reviews formed the basis of new National Qualifications Framework, centring on a Professional Certificate in Effective Practice developed in partnership with the YJB (see Hester ). While some argued that there is ‘no inherent contradiction between good, consistent service delivery and wide (though not unbounded) discretion’ (Eadie and Canton , p.14), post‐CDA 1998 attempts to standardise youth justice processes and delineate the youth justice knowledge base were seen by others as an overtly political act and an assault on professional independence. Pitts (), for example, represents the ‘pursuit of homogeneity’ within youth justice as part of a broader ‘quest for congruence’ between a populist criminal justice agenda and potentially oppositional practice cultures, which amounted to the ‘zombification’ of youth justice.…”

“…They suggest that the CDA 1998 and the 2000 National Standards (Youth Justice Board ) introduced higher accountability which could be consistent with ‘best practice’, but only if high accountability is coupled with high discretion. They warn, however, that ‘rigid application of the rules’ and ‘increased standardisation’ is the ‘wrong strategy’ leading to ‘constrained practice’ (Eadie and Canton , p.24).…”

“…While National Standards for processes and procedures that must be followed when ‘doing’ probation work had been developed from the 1990s, they became more directive following the CDA 1998 and the development of separate standards for workers in the new multi‐agency YOTs (Youth Justice Board ). As Eadie and Canton () observed: ‘[s]ignificantly, the language of the Standards for Youth Justice has changed from “should” to “must”’ (p.16).…”

Probation and the Tragedy of Punishment

“…Moreover, this is required by fairness: the service received should depend not upon the judgments of the practitioner, but on the risks and needs of the offender. Eadie and Canton (2002), however, have argued that this managerialist analysis misunderstands the relationship between accountability and discretion. They go on to argue that, while discretion can create opportunities for unfairness, the indiscriminate application of tight prescriptive rules can lead to the unfairness that results from a denial of difference.…”

Just deserts? Developing practice in youth justice

“…The shift towards ‘tick‐box practice’ is a view supported by Eadie & Canton (2002), who suggest that the dominance of risk assessment in contemporary youth justice culture might displace a more reflective approach to the work. Similarly, Phoenix (2007) exploring the way in which practitioners acquired and made sense of information about ‘young law breakers’ found oddly contradictory statements.…”