The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

THE HAMILTON SHERIFF YOUTH COURT PILOT: THE FIRST SIX MONTHS

SECTION SIX: THE MULTI-AGENCY APPROACH

INTRODUCTION

A key feature of the Youth Court pilot is its emphasis upon inter-agency co-operation. A co-ordinated response is required from a number of key agencies to ensure that: appropriate young people are identified and referred to the Youth Court; information is passed between relevant agencies efficiently and effectively; and appropriate steps are taken to supervise and resource the orders that are imposed. In this section we examine effectiveness of multi-agency working in the Youth Court process from the perspectives of the key agencies concerned. First, however, the role and operation of the Youth Court Implementation Group is examined, since this provides the main multi-disciplinary forum through which issues relating to Youth Court procedures and processes are discussed.

THE YOUTH COURT IMPLEMENTATION GROUP

The establishment of a Youth Court Advisory Forum (subsequently renamed Youth Court Implementation Group or YCIG) was recommended by the Youth Court Feasibility Study Report (Scottish Executive, 2003). This report identified 10 key players concerned with the operation and servicing of the Youth Court and its procedures: Youth Court sheriffs, Procurator Fiscal, Strathclyde Police, North & South Lanarkshire Social Work Resources, Reporter, defence agents, sheriff clerk, contracted voluntary sector programme providers and Victim Support/Witness Service. It was recommended that these agencies should be invited to join the Youth Court Advisory Forum and representatives consisting of those actually involved in the operation or servicing of the Youth Court and its procedures, such as:

• a Youth Court sheriff (who in attendance might chair the meeting)
• a sheriff clerk administering the Youth Court
• a Fiscal assigned to Youth Court business
• senior social worker leading dedicated youth justice teams in North and South Lanarkshire
• senior Reporter covering Hamilton
• senior police officer involved with Youth Court covering Hamilton
• a local defence agent
• senior contracted voluntary sector programme provider
• local Victim Support (Scotland) representative
• Youth Court co-ordinator.

The Youth Court Implementation Group is also able to co-opt other persons or agencies as they see fit or to invite such persons or representatives to sit in on an observer basis. For example, representatives from the Scottish Executive Justice Department Community Justice Branch and Social Work Services Inspectorate attend meetings and the research team has been invited to attend. Initially meetings of the YCIG Meetings were convened monthly though the frequency of meetings has reduced as the number of emerging and ongoing procedural and process issues has decreased. The activities of the YCIG highlight the significant amount of work that went into establishing the Youth Court and its procedures.

The YCIG has, thus far, provided an effective means for identifying and monitoring a range of administrative and managerial issues related to the implementation and operation of the Youth Court. It has witnessed a small degree of turnover in its membership (not an uncommon feature of interagency groups of this kind) and it has endeavoured to integrate the participation and views of key stakeholder agencies.

Issues that have been discussed by the group have included training, the development of inter-agency partnerships (including " engaging with individuals or organisations known to have reservations about the Youth Court³¹"), electronic monitoring on bail and publicity/dissemination of information.

Specific operational issues emerged which highlighted potential tensions between different agencies involved in the operation of the Youth Court. These included: the marking of cases against the 'contextual criteria'; " minor operational difficulties"³² experienced by Procurators Fiscal and the police that were caused by IT difficulties; the undertaking of some 13-15 year old offenders without referral to the Reporter's Office; and the role of the Procurator Fiscal in 'sweeping cases up' into the Youth Court once the daily business for that court had been concluded ³³. The YCIG has therefore provided a forum in which important operational matters can be aired.

PERSPECTIVES ON MULTI-PROFESSIONAL WORKING

In general, the multi-agency approach was believed to be working well, with most agencies reporting that effective systems had been established for communication and for the sharing for information. The role of the Youth Court co-ordinator was viewed as an important mechanism for addressing any difficulties that arose, particularly within other agencies. Joint training and regular meetings had also taken place between senior managers involved in the Youth Court. This was seen positively by those involved:

"The very positive thing about the Youth Court is that each of the agencies involved see themselves as partners in dealing with this so it's about finding the joint solution." (social work manager)

"(T)he co-operation between agencies is good and it is about respecting what each other's roles are, but knowing what the information sharing needs and the joint responsibilities are in working to achieve that." (social work manager)

However, it was also suggested that the sheriffs may have been less committed to the multi-agency approach than most of the other professionals concerned.

Social Workers

The importance of networking at senior level was recognised:

"My senior manager has been involved in doing a lot of networking and establishing links, and my understanding is that there are regular meetings to monitor and evaluate the referral process. So although we're not directly involved with that, we are certainly reaping the benefits from it." (social worker)

Social workers commented that they would welcome a forum for discussion with other agencies involved in the Youth Court. Where tensions existed (for example between young people and the police) this would provide an opportunity to work towards developing relationships and clarifying areas of uncertainty.

Communication between different agencies at the referral stage was seen by social workers as effective. In particular, social workers commented that the designation of Youth Court staff based in other agencies meant that they knew who to contact for information, and enabled them to develop effective working relationships. The opportunity for consultation and discussion, particularly with the Procurator Fiscal was mentioned by all social workers as a very positive development, which recognised the important contribution that social workers could make in their professional capacity.

"We have had some discussions and debates about things and I'm sure we influence his decision but we don't necessarily change the decision. But as I say, we make some kind of contribution to it and it's helpful to us to participate in that…." (social work manager)

Clerks

In general, clerks believed that effective working relationships had been built up between different agencies through regular meetings and that day-to-day contact had also improved. Clerks admitted that one area in which communication had broken down occasionally had been in the forwarding of details of disposals to the co-ordinator. This was done on a daily basis by faxing the disposals across to the co-ordinator's office but occasionally did not occur if the dedicated clerk was otherwise occupied or there was a stand-in clerk who was less familiar with the Youth Court procedures.

Rather than having a single back-up clerk, a decision had been taken to " get all the criminal deputes up to speed on the particular procedures of the Youth Court". These procedures in general were said to be no different from other criminal court business. Instead the difference lay in the details, such as the communication with the co-ordinator and the operation of the court diary.

Reporters

The Reporters indicated that their good relationship with the Procurators Fiscal had continued since the Youth Court was set up. Communication with other agencies, such as the police and social work departments, was described as very effective. It was suggested that involvement in interagency training before the onset of the Youth Court pilot was partly responsible for this.

Police

The police suggested that in interagency working, there had been no significant problems. There were only slight 'teething problems' in relation to protocols over monitoring of electronic tagging. There had been a slight hitch about the timescale for undertakings cases, which was resolved easily with the Procurators Fiscal. Positive feedback from Fiscals on the quality of reports was mentioned by police officers as having been good for morale. Regular monitoring data from the court, which indicated a falling number of trials and which presented the outcomes of interesting or high profile cases, was highlighted as good for officers' morale and for the Youth Court's credibility in the force.

Liaison with the Procurators Fiscal was found by police to be very productive and efficient, attributed to the proactive approach of dedicated Fiscals who were engaged in trying to find solutions. Case management officers in particular found Fiscals very approachable, and cited co-operation with them regarding information about pending cases and police history aside from convictions. One officer commented positively on the experience of having a Fiscal arrange for the charges of members of one gang to be dealt with together, and of having a Fiscal discuss with them how innovative bail conditions might be used to change behaviour.

Procurators Fiscal

The greater exchange of information with police, social work and the Reporter, and the formal liaison with the latter two, distinguishes the Procurator Fiscal's role in the Youth Court from that in the ordinary court. In general, despite some minor practical frustrations, inter-agency co-operation was reported by Procurators Fiscal to be excellent. The standard system of lists giving brief information on social work involvement with an accused was not thought to be particularly helpful, however, a phone conversation with the relevant social worker could be extremely useful. That said, it was not always easy to contact the relevant social worker and doing so was reported to be time consuming.

Defence Agents

No difficulties were reported by defence agents with respect to communication between agencies which was viewed, on the whole, to be very effective. Solicitors reported positive interaction with social workers (due to the high quality of background reports) and with Fiscals (due to the greater scope for negotiation and the presence of Procurators Fiscal dedicated to the court). Agents found the Crown more willing to discuss pleas and to concede charges which, they suggested, might be due to experience on the part of the Youth Court Fiscals. Once informed with the summary of evidence, agents can discuss pleas at an early stage. Adjournments are exceptional but may be inevitable when, for example, an agent takes over a complex case from a duty solicitor.

PROGRAMMING COURT BUSINESS

The sheriff clerks are responsible for liaising between the sheriff and outside agencies, and for programming the court business. The Youth Court was reported to have made this task more difficult since it was necessary to programme in the work of the four Youth Court sheriffs within an overall programme involving each of the nine sheriffs in Hamilton Sheriff Court. Clerks and sheriffs believed that the task of programming would be made slightly easier if each of the nine sheriffs sat in the Youth Court, either as a dedicated court or with Youth Court cases scheduled within the general court programme.

It was agreed by sheriffs that there was excess capacity in the Youth Court - shrieval estimates of the likely numbers of 'persistent young offenders' were much lower than those produced by the Feasibility Group and more in line with the actual throughput of cases being dealt with by the Youth Court.

The consequence of the low workloads was that the Youth Court business was often finished by mid-morning, but the sheriff had been scheduled for Youth Court business for the entire day. As an additional sheriff had not been provided for the pilot, this, it was suggested by sheriffs and clerks, meant that there was a knock-on effect on other criminal court business. A 'sweeper' arrangement was introduced, whereby the Youth Court Procurator Fiscal would bring in short trials from other courts for the Youth Court to deal with. However, this arrangement had proved somewhat problematic since the dedicated Youth Court Fiscals were often required for other tasks related to the Youth Court in the afternoons and were not therefore available to undertake this sweeper role. One sheriff pointed out that this arrangement also limited the extent to which they could get involved in 'sweeper' trials since only small trials (e.g. involving one accused and at most two witnesses) that could commence prior to 2.30 or 3pm tended to be dealt with in this way.

SUMMARY

The multi-agency approach of the Youth Court was working well. The Youth Court Implementation Group provided a useful forum for identifying and monitoring a range of administrative and managerial issues relating to the operation of the Youth Court, training and the development of inter-agency partnerships. Operationally, minor issues have highlighted tensions between different agencies but these issues have been, or are being, addressed through the Youth Court Implementation Group or the Youth Court co-ordinator. Effective systems have been established for inter-agency communication and the role of the co-ordinator was viewed as important in responding to any difficulties that arose between agencies.

« Previous | Contents | Next »