Integration in youth justice services in England and Wales

Summary

Youth justice services in England and Wales vary in their organisational structure. Some remain structurally separate from other teams in the local authority, while others have become more integrated. This research focused on the concept of integration; exploring how youth justice services are currently structured, what “integration” means for to service and case managers, and the advantages and challenges of different approaches.

The research was conducted by the Evidence and Insights team at the Youth Justice Board (YJB). 

Approach  

The research was completed in two stages: 

1. Youth Justice Plan analysis: Analysis of 142 youth justice plans submitted to the YJB for the year 2023-24.
2. Semi-structured interviews with practitioners: Interviews with 12 youth justice practitioners (seven service managers and five case managers) across seven youth justice services in England and Wales. Services represented a range of council types and had a range of HMIP inspection ratings.  

Key findings 

What does integration mean in a youth justice context? 
Analysis of youth justice plans suggests a shift away from detached or standalone youth justice services – less than 1% of services stated they were operating in a standalone structure in 2023-24 reporting, down from 15% in 2015. The majority of youth justice services were integrated in some way with other services in the local authority, with several overtly describing themselves as being an “integrated service”. However, there was inconsistency in how this term was applied in different contexts. Through analysis of youth justice plans and practitioner interviews, we observed 4 key models of structural integration: 

1. Integrated at directorate level – 29% of services
2. Integrated at portfolio level – 26% of services
3. Integrated in an umbrella service – 19% of services
4. Integrated at delivery level – 17% of services

The driving forces behind this integration appear to be multi-faceted, from national policy directives emphasising joined-up working, advances in Child First practice, to local priorities around contextual safeguarding and child exploitation. Financial pressures and an overall reduction in funding may also be prompting leaders to re-evaluate traditional service boundaries. 

What are the benefits of integrated structures? 

• Reduced duplication: Sharing information, adopting joint case auditing processes, and providing interventions collaboratively minimised the number of professionals and handovers for an individual child.  
• Improved communication: Rapid informal communication across teams, allowing proactive problem-solving and efficient resource allocation. 
• Shared funding: Structural integration was often perceived as presenting an opportunity to pursue funding sources creatively and across service boundaries. 
• Inter-agency collaboration: The process of moving towards an integrated structure encouraged services to articulate their own organisational identity and clarify their own purpose. This not only empowered youth justice practitioners, but also fostered understanding of the specialism and unique value of other services within the integrated structure. 
• Shared training: Integrated services promote knowledge-sharing and joint training, ensuring staff are equipped to support the diverse needs of children on their caseloads. 
• Stronger community links: Drawing on existing community ties established by other services, supporting the holistic approach vital for contextual safeguarding. 
• Embedding Child First: Practitioners felt they could influence broader local authority culture to be more Child First in nature, shifting language and approaches away from risk management towards a strengths-based approach. 

What are the challenges? 

• Maintaining specialism: Services highlighted the importance of maintaining their specialist youth justice identity, specialism, and statutory responsibilities – to safeguard children, provide public protection, and to adhere to current inspection frameworks. There were concerns that full convergence with other services could dilute this expertise.  
• Defining service scope: Defining appropriate boundaries for the service’s scope and remit while still addressing wider needs was cited as a common inherent tension for service managers.  
• Operational and strategic remit: Concerns were raised about the size and scope of the operational and strategic remit of a sole service manager or head service. In some areas, service managers had their portfolio limited to ensure they could adequately focus on the unique strategic partnerships vital for youth justice delivery. 
• Contextual factors: Large geographical boundaries and multiple sites, funding constraints and short-term funding, and high staff turnover in partner agencies also hampered integrated working in some areas. 

Recommendations and next steps 

This research set out to describe and analyse different integrated models, but in a similar vein to Fielder et al (2008) it did not attempt to make any value judgements about what has ‘worked’. Ultimately, youth justice services across England and Wales must thoughtfully assess the complex web of local circumstances, service needs and resources to determine their ideal structural model. Integration is not an end in itself, but a means of delivering comprehensive, efficient support which aligns with Child First tenets. youth justice services looking to structurally integrate with other services locally may wish to: 

• Maintain the specialist youth justice identity and training for staff within integrated structures to ensure the unique needs and strengths of children who come into contact with the criminal justice system are supported through specialised assessment and interventions.  
• Establish clear protocols, including clear outlining of roles and responsibilities, joint auditing processes to improve case management, delegated responsibilities, and handover between youth justice services and other agencies.  
• Involve staff throughout the integration process through consultation and clear communication to improve buy in and successful implementation.  
• Actively seek feedback from children, respecting their knowledge to assess the effectiveness of integrated approaches to ensure that services are meeting their needs and promoting their strengths in a responsive way, aligning with the tenets of Child First. 
• Prioritise co-location and ensure shared access to IT systems.  
• Document and share successful case studies and best practice of integrated working.  

Future analysis and research

Future research may analyse of the effectiveness of services, using the updated youth justice Key Performance Indicator (KPI) measures and/or HMIP ratings, comparing services within each of the different integrated typologies to support service improvement.  

Contact

Name:	Jordan Rehill
Email:	Jordan.Rehill@yjb.gov.uk