‘Who works’ rather
than ‘what works’
in youth justice?
Ali Wigzell
Relationships and change




Importance of relationships has long been recognised.
Majority of studies concerning the impact of supervisory relationships
lie in the adult offending field. (E.g. Rex, 1999; Healy, 2012; Wood et al,
2013).
But evidence from psychotherapy is that although there are
intervention models that are more effective with particular groups, the
most important factor (within the practitioner’s control) to success is
the quality of the relationship between the client and practitioner
(McNeill et al, 2005).
Working alliance is ‘defined as where the therapist and client share:
agreement on overall goals; agreement on tasks to realise those goals;
and a bond of mutual respect and trust’ (McNeill et al, 2005: 24).
Young person – worker relationships

Intensive Supervision & Surveillance: many managers perceived quality of
relationships to be ‘most important’ factor; ‘transformative effect’ of bond (Youth
Justice Board, 2004; Gray, 2013).

Intensive Fostering (IF) – interviewees said that practitioner/carer relationships
were central to the process of change for over half of the young people. (Biehal et
al, 2010:11).

Survey of 421 YOT practitioner found that 94% believed that developing a positive
worker – young person relationship was necessary for effective engagement (Ipsos
MORI, 2010: 24)

Interviews with 52 girls found that the principal determinant of their assessment of
the youth offending team (YOT) intervention was the quality of relationship with
their YOT worker (Sharpe, 2012: 134-5)

Further evidence of the centrality of young person – worker relationships can be
found in youth custody (Ofsted, 2010), resettlement programmes (Ipsos Mori,
2010: 25-54; Cooper et al., 2007) and voluntary sector schemes (Knight, 2010: 23).

Practice literature across social work, youth work, youth justice (Prior and Mason,
2008, 2010)
Why are relationships important?

‘The process of desistance can be exceptionally demanding, demoralising and lonely’
(Gray, 2013)

‘Re-labelling’ (Maruna and LeBel, 2010; Maruna, 2001) – ‘I am a good person at heart and I
can stop offending’

Encouraging normative compliance (McNeill and Robinson, 2013 cited in Lewis, 2014)

Psychological growth (Miller, cited in Trevithick, 2005)

Supporting motivation (Prior and Mason, 2008)

Attachment theory – developing a ‘corrective relationship’ (Trevithick, 2005)

More important during adolescence? – ‘a period of malleability’ (McNeill, 2006)
Not the be all and end all

‘…good relationships alone will not be enough to bring about change’
(McNeill et al., 2005: 39);

Agency – it is the individual’s decision to stop committing crime, although
relationships can support and motivate desistance efforts;

The supervisory relationship ‘cannot act as a surrogate for tackling
structural problems in society’ (Burnett and McNeill, 2005);

Relationships with the offender’s wider social network are key (Burnett,
2007; McNeill, 2006; McNeill, 2009);

But the effectiveness of every part of process, relies on a good
relationship.
Positive relationships











Mutual respect (Prior and Mason, 2010);
Trust (Sharpe, 2012; Prior and Mason, 2010; Ipsos MORI, 2010);
Optimism and belief in capacity to change (Lewis, 2014);
Being treated as a ‘human being’, not an object (Liebrich, 1994; Lewis,
2014);
Warmth, genuineness, showing an interest (Trevithick, 2005);
Being listened to (Appleton, 2010, cited in Lewis, 2014);
Participative – shared goals (McNeill and Batchelor, 2004);
Supportive (and opportunities to provide support);
‘Not just talking a room’ (Sharpe, 2012);
Empathy (Prior and Mason, 2010; Cherry, 2012); and
Pro-social (Trotter, 1999).
Implications for practice

A ‘therapeutic case management approach’ – consistency, continuity, consolidation,
commitment, and support with compliance (McNeill et al, 2005)
 One key worker that coordinates all aspects of intervention (Prior and Mason, 2008;
McNeill et al, 2005)
 Continuity of worker during involvement with YOT?
 2010 survey of 421 YOT practitioners – only 37% said that young people stayed with
same worker on subsequent orders

Intensity of contact with workers – frequency (Wilson, 2012) and duration of
meetings?

Matching workers and young people on basis of shared characteristics (Ipsos
MORI, 2010; Sharpe, 2012; Gray, 2013), but little done in practice.

Consulting young people during allocation/ recruitment?

Training and recruitment?
Questions for consideration

Does this resonate with your experiences?

Thicker soup – are such skills and relationships now even more important?

Do different groups/ young people value particular practitioner qualities/ supervisory
approaches? Do some aspects resonate more strongly?

How do you establish good relationships? Importance of duration of contact, intensity?

Natural skill or can one be trained? Does training background affect ability to build
relationships?

Are such relationships adversely affected by time-limited nature of supervision?

Is it in young people’s best interests to have a variety of specialists involved rather than one
consistent worker?
References 1

Biehal, N., Ellison, S., Sinclair, I., Randerson, C., Richards, A. Mallon, S., Kay, C., Green, J., Bonin, E.
and Beecham, J. (2010) A Report on the Intensive Fostering Pilot Programme,Youth Justice Board,
London

Bonta J, Rugge T, Scott T-L, Bourgon G, and Yessine A K, (2008) ‘Exploring the Black Box of
Community Supervision’, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47:3, pp248-270

Burnett R and McNeill F (2005) ‘The place of the officer-offender relationship in assisting
offenders to desist from crime’, Probation Journal, 52: 3, 221-242

Cherry, C. (2010)Transforming Behaviour: Pro-social modelling in practice - A Handbook for
Practitioners and Managers second edition), Devon Willan Publishing

Healy D (2012) ‘Advise, Assist and Befriend: Can Probation Supervision Support Desistance?’
Social Policy & Administration, 46: 4, 377–394

Ipsos MORI (2010) Evaluation of the London Youth Reducing Reoffending Programme (Daedalus):
Emerging findings [accessed via:
http://www.londoncjp.gov.uk/publications/2010_06_02_LYRRPEmergingFindingsRpt.pdf
(16/12/12)]

Leibrich J (1994) ‘What do offenders say about supervision and going straight?’ Federal probation,
58:2, 41-46

Lewis, S (2014) ‘Learning from success and failure: Deconstructing the working relationship
within probation practice and exploring its impact on probationers, using a collaborative
approach’, Probation Journal, 61: 2, pp. 161-175
References 2

Maruna S (2001) Making Good: How Ex-convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives,
Washington: American Psychological Association

Maruna S and La Bel T (2010) ‘The desistance paradigm in correctional practice:
from programmes to lives’ in F. McNeill, P. Raynor and C. Trotter (eds.) Offender
Supervision: New directions in theory, research and practice, Oxon: Willan Publishing

McNeil, F. Batchelor, S. Burnett, R. and Knox, J (2005) 21st Century Social Work:
Reducing Re-offending: Key Practice Skills, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive

McNeill, F. and Batchelor, S. (2004) Persistent Offending by Young People: Developing
Practice, Issues in Community and Criminal Justice, Monograph 3

Moore, R. Gray, E. Roberts, C. Taylor, E. and the Youth Justice Board (2004) ISSP: the
initial report - summary, London: Youth Justice Board

Prior D and Mason, P (2010) ‘A Different Kind of Evidence? Looking for ‘What
Works’ in Engaging Young Offenders’, Youth Justice, 10: 3, pp211-226

Prior, D. and Mason, P (2008) Engaging Young People Who Offend, London: Youth Justice
Board
References 3

Rex S (1999) 'Desistance from Offending: Experiences of Probation', Howard Journal
of Criminal Justice, 38: 4, 366-383

Sharpe, G. (2012) Offending Girls:Young Women and Youth Justice, Oxon: Routledge

Trotter, C (1999) Working with Involuntary Clients: a guide to practice, London: SAGE
publications

Wilson, E (2013) Youth Justice Interventions – findings from the Juvenile Cohort Study
(JCS), Ministry of Justice Analytical Series, 2013 (available via:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research-and-analysis/moj [10.01.2014)]