There are some things to
welcome in the government’s youth
justice policy statement presented to Parliament today. Improved funding arrangements should enable
local services to divert more children from crime, particularly knife crime and
develop more effective alternatives to custody especially for those on remand. Plans
to better incentivise local authorities to keep children awaiting trial for
serious crimes in the community look promising.
But does the
package really add up to the self-proclaimed “foundations fit for the future”
of a modern system?
Yes, the government’s
making some structural change- but it’s of questionable merit. They’re going further than the independent
review of the Youth Justice Board (YJB) (also out today), by relieving the YJB
of its roles in developing youth justice standards, overseeing how well they’re being met and advising
ministers accordingly- as well as disbursing funds. These functions will revert
to the Ministry of Justice, in line with cross government plans to cut spending
and give ministers more decision-making powers.
The Board
has at least survived, something of a surprise following its last minute
reprieve from the 2010 bonfire of the quangos and loss of its responsibilities
for youth custody in 2017. It would certainly have been odd to scrap entirely a
New Labour creation which has been at the heart of what today’s statement calls
“one of the great societal success stories in modern Britain.” The YJB will be
a shadow of its former self however much it can make of its new mission of
driving continuous improvement.
David Lammy’s
statement also has some honest words on the dismaying conditions for children
in custody, particularly Young Offender Institutions “too old and too big, they
are austere and unsafe, and they were often not designed to hold children at
all”. It’s just what Charlie Taylor said in his 2016 review since when the
distraction of the Secure School has led to 10 wasted years. Work is now
promised on a plan that is realistic, affordable, and focused on achievable
outcomes, getting children safely out of their rooms and into education. Key to
that will be investment in the right kinds of values and skills among staff.
That
indicates where today’s proposals don’t go far enough. This was an opportunity
to move youth justice policy out of the Ministry of Justice into the Department
for Education. Developing the best response to children in trouble of course
involves many departments and agencies. That’s why the variety of experience
and expertise among YJB members is so important. Taking responsibility from
them and giving it to MoJ officials seems a mistake; better the YJB report to a
department more centrally involved with promoting the interests of children.
Youth
Justice Minister Jake Richards recognises that successful policy and practice
relies predominantly on activities outside his department’s remit.
He recently expressed frustration at how long the Health department took to
get the best child psychologist in the country to write a one-pager for staff
at the Secure Training Centre on how to manage girls locked up there.
Lammy will “soon
set out our plans for the system as a whole and, taken together, we believe
these proposals will amount to the most fundamental reform of the youth justice
system in a generation.”
To do that should
paradoxically mean a significant reduction in his own responsibilities and a
shift to a more fitting place in the machinery of government. After all, he who opens a school door, closes
a prison.
