Multi-agency responses to children and young people who sexually offend
| Published date | 01 June 2013 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550513490120a |
| Author | Becky Shepherd |
| Date | 01 June 2013 |
| Subject Matter | Research & reports |
knowledge is based on experience due to a lack of ‘formal’ training in this area), for
improved joint working (with police and probation staff having greater roles in local
well-being boards) and for clinical commissioning groups to ensure that a full range
of services are provided and accessible in communities. In addition, the paper also
recommends that alternative strategies ought to be in place to improve opportunities
for desistance, such as greater employment placements for those offenders with
mental health needs (ensuring the appropriateness of such placements) and greater
access to other interventions, such as alcohol and drug treatment.
This paper would be most useful for probation (and police) staff who work with
complex and troubled offenders who have mental health issues. However, it would
also be purposeful for strategic staff in both the criminal justice system and the health
services, to better understand the multitude of complexities involved in working with
offenders with mental health conditions and the need for a multi-agency cohesive
response.
Briefingno 45: Probation Servicesand Mental Health, written by Professor Charlie
Brooker and Jen Glyn and published by Centre for Mental Health, December 2012
is available online at http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk
Dervla McArt
Greater Manchester Probation Trust
Multi-agency responses to children and young people
who sexually offend
This inspection examined the quality of assessment, planning, interventions and
outcomes for those supervised within the community. The inspection team visited six
Youth Offending Teams (YOT) and examined 24 cases in depth.
The average time between the disclosure and sentencing was eight months. Little
consideration was given to why the offence had been committed, especially when
the offence was denied, therefore neither risk of harm nor safeguarding needs were
sufficiently assessed or managed.
Several young people were previously known to the authorities, sometimes
repeatedly,for sexually harmful behaviouror other concerns, but little workhad been
undertaken about this behaviour: opportunities for early intervention had been mis-
sed. Some workerswere reluctant to share information with educationestablishments.
Schools wererarely included in multi-agencystrategy meetings. Healthservices’ input
varied considerably. When health staff had specialist knowledge or training
regarding adolescent sexually harmful behaviour, responses were better.
Holistic, multi-agency assessments were very few, and frequently not shared.
Health assessments were inconsistent and rarely shared with other professionals.
Few specialist assessments were undertaken prior to sentence. There was a lack of
robust quality assurance of assessments. Where children and young people were
Research & reports 191
To continue reading
Request your trial