The experience of young people transitioning between youth offending services to probation services
| Author | Jayne Price |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550520939166 |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The experience
of young people
transitioning between
youth offending
services to
probation services
Jayne Price
University of Chester, UK
Abstract
This article explores the experience of transitioning from youth offending services to
adult probation services upon turning age 18 years while incarcerated. The significant
differences in the level of provision have been described as a ‘cliff-edge’ (Transition to
Adulthood Alliance (2009). Drawing upon interviews with young people held in
institutions, stakeholders, and survey data from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons,
it is argued that the drop in support is exacerbated by poor communication between
institutions and services which has harmful implications for young people during this
crucial period of developmental maturity and beyond custody.
Keywords
maturity, prisons, probation, transitions, youth justice
Introduction
In England and Wales, turning age 18 years is the legal point in which young
peoples’
1
status moves from ‘child’ to ‘adult’ (Home Office, 1933). For children,
there is a separate youth justice system (YJS) and youth custody service which
Corresponding Author:
Jayne Price, Department of Social and Political Science, University of Chester, Parkgate Road Campus,
Chester CH1 4BJ, UK.
Email: jayne.price@chester.ac.uk
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Probation Journal
2020, Vol. 67(3) 246–263
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0264550520939166
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
operates as a distinct arm under Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service
(HMPPS) (Truss, 2017). Additional provisions and safeguards exist for this popu-
lation which seeks to attend to their specific needs as a ‘vulnerable’
2
group (Home
Office, 1998). Upon turning age 18 years, the responsibility for supervision of
those involved within the YJS transfers from local youth offending teams (YOTs) to
probation services. Children held within the juvenile secure estate also transition
from secure children’s homes (SCHs), secure training centres (STCs), or young
offenders’ institutions (YOIs) into designated young adults YOIs or adult prisons.
3
The current policy context is provided below, followed by a literature review before
the methodological approach of the mixed methods research is outlined. The
empirical data demonstrate how these age-determined transitions within the crimi-
nal justice system (CJS) are arbitrary and probation services are not adequately
structured nor equipped to adequately support young people also experiencing
crucial neurological development. The detrimental implications of this transfer are
discussed.
Policy context
Local authorities have a statutory duty to have a YOTs including representatives from
health, social work, and education following the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
(Home Office, 1998). This demonstrates the approach taken with children to pro-
vide services that both to address the risks they are deemed to pose and to attend to
their specific needs (Home Office, 1998; YJB, 2019a). Their operation and focus
on ‘risk’ has not been without criticism (Hopkins-Burke, 2016) and as subsequent
youth justice agendas and objectives have been set, much divergence, restructuring
and therefore local variation in service delivery has been found (see Haines and
Case, 2018; Smith and Gray, 2019). Although rooted in social work, the modern
national probation service, formed in 2001 by the Criminal Justice and Court
Services Act (Home Office, 2000a), is concerned with criminal justice, punishment
of offenders, and public protection (Raynor, 2007; Whitehead and Statham,
2006). Controversial probation ‘reforms’ under transforming rehabilitation which
split the probation service into the public national probation service (NPS) and
privately operated community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) (Ministry of Justice
(MoJ), 2013a) resulted in a number of serious issues and were heavily criticised
(Burke, 2016; Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorates (CJJI), 2016; Her Majesty’s
Inspectorate of Probation, 2015, 2017; House of Commons Justice Committee,
2018a). There were concerns that the reforms failed to consider impacts on links
and effective communication between services (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pro-
bation, 2016). It was announced in 2019 that the probation service would be
renationalised (MoJ, NPS and HMPPS, 2018, 2019).
The first apparent guidance for the management of transitions between juvenile
and young adult/adult penal institutions was released in 2008, subsequent gui-
dance in 2012 (NOMS, 2012) followed a critical report of transitions arrange-
ments (see CJJI, 2012). More recently, the YJB (2015, 2018) have issued the Joint
National Protocol for Transitions in England, which is more focused on the transfer
Price 247
To continue reading
Request your trial