School of Social Sciences – Youth Justice

Level 2 (NQF level 5) Module Assessment and Feedback Template

Module Code: CARG21115 NTU Student No.:

Module Name: Interpersonal Skills and Multi-Agency Module Leader:

Working

Marker: Rita Hawley Moderator:

Assignment: Essay Grade: 2:1 LOW

Tutor Feedback Strengths and Areas for Improvement

Comments:
Your use of Egan's Soler model and Carl Rogers' PCA to demonstrate how you would
(strengths and develop a rapport with Jamie was clear and you applied it directly to the case study.
areas for
You also used Thompson's PCA model not only to Jamie but towards organisational
improvement with
culture as well and applied the concepts of negotiation and advocacy to the case
respect to the
learning outcomes) study.
Youth could have expanded how you would share information and work in partnership
to identify and analyse risk and what strategies you could apply to do this.

Class Scale General Characteristics

Exceptional breadth and understanding of the subject and its underlying concepts;
evidence of breadth and depth of reading/research to inform development of work;
Exceptional 1st critical evaluation/synthesis/analysis and of reading/research; exceptional
demonstration of relevant skills; excellent communication; performance in some, if
FIRST not all, areas deemed beyond expectation of the level.
(Excellent)
High 1st Excellent knowledge of the subject as the student is typically able to go
beyond what has been taught (particularly for a high 1 st); excellent
Mid 1st
demonstration of relevant skills; evidence of breadth of reading/research to inform
Low 1st development of work; demonstrates strong communication skills.

High 2.1 As below but very good work characterized by evidence of wider understanding of
UPPER SECOND the subject as the student is typically able to relate facts/concepts together
(Very good) Mid 2.1 with some ability to apply to known/taught contexts; identification and
H selection of material to inform development of work; very good demonstration of
Low 2.1 relevant skills; demonstrates good communication skills.

High 2.2 A good breadth of knowledge and understanding of the taught content although
balanced towards the descriptive rather than the analytical; good
LOWER SECOND
Mid 2.2 demonstration of relevant taught skills, though may be limited in range; addresses
(Good)
all aspects of the given brief ;uses set material to inform development of work;
Low 2.2 communication shows clarity but structure may lack coherence.

High 3rd Knowledge and understanding is sufficient to deal with terminology, basic
facts and concepts but fails to make meaningful synthesis; adequate
THIRD Mid 3rd demonstration of relevant skills over a limited range; generally addresses most of
(Sufficient) the requirements of the given brief; relies on set material to inform development
of work; communication/presentation is generally competent but with some
Low 3rd
weaknesses.

Insufficient knowledge and understanding of the subject and its underlying

concepts; given brief may be only tangentially addressed or may ignore key
aspects of the brief; some ability to evaluate given reading/research however work
Marginal Fail is more generally descriptive; naively follows or may ignore set material in
development of work; demonstration of relevant skills over a reduced range;
communication shows limited clarity, poor presentation, structure may not be
FAIL coherent.
(Insufficient)
Mid Fail Highly insufficient knowledge or no evidence of knowledge of the subject;
understanding of taught concepts is typically at the word level with facts
being reproduced in a disjointed or decontextualized manner; fails to
address most or all of the requirements of the brief; ignores set material in
Low Fail development of work; fails to demonstrate relevant skills; lacks basic
communication skills.
Class Scale General Characteristics

Work of no merit OR absent, work not submitted, penalty in some misconduct

ZERO Zero
cases.
 Mapping Student performance to the Assessed Learning Outcomes

Assessed Learning Outcomes Exceptional 1st 2.1 2.2 3rd Marginal Fail Zero
1st High Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid Low Fail Mid Low
Exceptional breadth and Excellent Very good Good breadth Knowledge and Insufficient Highly Work of no
understanding of the knowledge and knowledge and of knowledge understanding is knowledge insufficient merit; absent or
subject and its underlying understanding of understanding of and sufficient to deal of the knowledge or work not
concepts. the area of study the area of study. understanding with subject and understanding of submitted;
Critical evaluation as the student is Able to relate of the area of terminology, underlying the area of penalty awarded
/synthesis/analysis and of typically able to facts and study. basic facts and concepts. study; fails to in a case of
reading/research; go beyond what concepts with concepts. Lacks address the academic
performance in some, if has been taught some ability to meaningful learning irregularity.
not all, areas deemed (particularly for a apply to known or synthesis. outcome.
beyond expectation of high 1st) taught contexts.
the level.
Demonstrate an understanding of
the relevant statutory and legal √
requirements of youth offending
service policies and their
application to practice
Examine the need to work as an
accountable and effective √
member of the youth offending
service.
Demonstrate an understanding of
the importance of partnership √
working to identify and analyse
risk of harm.
Demonstrate the importance of
sharing information between √
youth justice partnership
agencies.
Examine the concepts of
negotiation and advocacy. √
Having identified the roles and
responsibilities of youth √
offending service workers in both
custodial and community based
settings, evaluate their
relationships with other
professionals.
Apply strategies for working
effectively with other √
partnerships
Analyse the impact
organisational culture may have √
on effective inter-agency working
 Word count – Part 1: 1254, Part 2: 1028

Interpersonal Skills and Multi-Agency Working – Assignment (2500)

Using the provided case study explain what methods you would employ to
engage with a young offender and establish a rapport with them.

It has been a complaint that the Youth Justice Board (YJB) fails to effectively engage
young offenders, families involved, those within the Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)
and appropriate workers. Researches surrounding effective interventions have Commented [P1]: by who?
suggested that there are techniques that can work to reach young people who offend;
in particular empathies on ‘what works’ and the McGuire principle (McGuire and Commented [P2]: s
Priestly 1995), this involves building a personal but professional relationship with the
young people and their families (cited in Mason and David, 2008). Therefore the first
part of this essay is going to focus on a range of methods such as the practitioners’
micro skills, professionalism, [e.g. the ability to see past cultural difference of both
the workers and the young offenders also demonstrating the ability to be empathetic
rather than sympathetic] and effective multi-agency working that can be used to
engage with young offenders and establish a rapport with them, and this will be
explained using the case study of Jamie Bentley.

Bachelor and McNeill (2005) writes that young offenders have a range of social and
personal difficulties and it is up to the YOTs to acknowledge and address these
difficulties to help prevent further re-offending. According to the case study, Jamie
Bentley appears to always be mistrustful and suspicious to the Children’s home
workers; this can be a result of a range of risk factors he has experienced in his past
for example, witnessing bad relationships between his parents and domestic violence
towards his mum; with his family members (both parents not wanting him and being
banned from his older brothers home); being a looked after child [in care] and even Commented [P3]: good
exclusion from school. Research surrounding engaging with young people who offend
have identified these risk factors as ‘hard to reach’ factors however whether or not it
is Jamie disrupting his own engagement or the barriers put up by service that is
causing him to be ‘hard to reach’ can be argued . Furthermore, this suggests that the Commented [P4]: which research
practitioners have failed to form a purposeful relationship or rapport with Jamie hence
his mistrust towards them. Therefore, in order to engage with Jamie the practitioners
first have to establish a personal relationship with him. Bandler and Grinder (1979)
defines rapport as demonstrating ‘understanding of the other person’s model of the
world’ (cited in Frogs into Princes, pg. 80), which means when Jamie and the workers
concerned develop a rapport, they will have a close and harmonious [or empathic]
relationship where they communicate well and understand the feelings of each other. Commented [P5]: √

Moreover, there are many suggested techniques that may be effective in building a
trusting and enduring relationship with Jamie, a significant one being the use of
empathy, warmth and geniuses by the practitioners towards him. Carl Rogers (1961)
Person-Centred Approach (PCA) supports this as he suggests that practitioners should
focus on the person rather than the problem by supporting self-efficiency of the young
person (Burnett, 2000). In so doing, workers concerned with Jamie should look past
his problems and try to understand him using Roger’s three core conditions. This
include presenting a valuing attitude towards him (unconditional positive regard),
ensuring genuine care, truthfulness and respect (congruence), and being empathetic
by listening and understanding him personally and showing him that he has been
understood by communicating to him so that he may understand himself and act
towards it (Egan, 1975) . However this solely relies on the worker’s personal ability to
be able to build a non-judgemental and harmonious relationship with Jamie; the
inability of the workers to do so can act as a barrier to ‘reaching’ or engaging with

5
 Word count – Part 1: 1254, Part 2: 1028

Jamie; as Bell (2002) and Hill (1999) suggest that young people respect workers who
show interest in them and are non- judgemental. Commented [P6]: good use of Rogers to the case
study and critique of the limitations of the approach

Another approach is the anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practice which

suggests that there are three levels of which discrimination and oppression may
happen (Neil Thompson, 2006). Thompson’s Personal, Cultural and Social/structural
(PCS) model claims that Personal experience and feeling; Cultural norms and
stereotypes created within a culture; and institutional Structures, rules and order
within society such as the media and religious beliefs can influence the views and
attitude they have towards someone. Therefore, in terms of the case study, the
practitioners may be able to engage better with Jamie if they don’t allow their
prejudice belief influence the way they treat him as that will lead to more mistrust
and exclusion. This can again act as a barrier to reach or engage Jamie successfully. Commented [P7]: √

Likewise, Jamie’s level of literacy and numeracy concerns can act as a barrier on its
own; however it is the practitioners’ job to address that need. The Key Element of
Effective Practice (KEEP) suggest that a way to do this is by identifying Jamie’s
learning ability/style i.e the way he learns best (YJB, 2008) through Assert
assessment. This will determine whether Jamie is a pragmatic, activist, theorist or
reflectors learner (Honey and Mumford, 1986); identifying Jamie’s learning style(s) Commented [P8]: reflective?
and implementing it be may help him engage better in his key work sessions. The
KEEP suggests that the assessment should be consistent.
Commented [P9]: good
Moreover, micro skills explains how a variety of communication skills [varying from
verbal communication to non-verbal, body language, attendant/commitment, types of
questions etc.], will help to understand and get through to someone. Harris (1987)
defines communication as ‘the process by which one person (or group) shares and
imparts information to another person (or groups) so that both people (and groups)
clearly understand one another’. In reference to Thompson PCS model, if a
practitioner still hold a prejudice view towards someone, yet verbally communicates
otherwise; their body language can unconsciously reveal their true beliefs and
behaviours (Furnham, 1999) by contradicting what they are saying, this is known as a
‘kinetic slip’. Therefore in terms of Jamie’s case study, the workers need to show a Commented [P10]: good
sign of interest in him that is genuine. Egan (1975) SOLER theory explains five body
language that contribute in showing personal interest in another person. In this case,
these include the practitioners facing Jamie; adopting an open posture e.g. having
arms uncrossed when speaking to him; Leaning; looking him in the eyes (eye contact)
and being relaxed throughout. However, this suggest that to be able to effective
communicate all practitioners have to be trained on micro skills. Commented [P11]: yes they do and they need time
and space to practice them.

Furthermore, establishing a rapport with the young person [in this case Jamie] will
enhance the practitioners’ understand about him as to why he does what he does etc.
If the practitioner notices any changes in him, they can advocate oh his behave, for
example Jamie complains that he likes school but when he want to go in he isn’t
allowed. Advocating for Jamie will ensure him that his rights and view are respected
and heard (DH, 2001). This will require negotiation skills of the practitioner which can
be a process, as the school have to convince in working with the YOTs to get Jamie
back into school more than just two days a week. Commented [P12]: good, you used the case study t
explain concept of negotiation and advocacy

In conclusion, in both the PCA and PCS method in engaging young people, and with
the concept of advocacy and negotiation, communication is inevitable. However the
skills the practitioners hold when communicating will contribute in the effectiveness of
the engagement. Also good practice includes honesty, respect, non-
prejudice/discriminative, empathy etc. which can all help the workers develop a
6
 Word count – Part 1: 1254, Part 2: 1028

rapport with the young offender and give the young person a reason to trust in the
workers for effective practice. Having the service users (young offender) trust will
make engaging easier and effective for reducing offending behaviour.

Reflecting on your own observation of work within the Youth Justice system
illustrate why partnership working and communication with young people is
crucial to their success and that of Youth Offending Teams.

In 2003, Lord Laming criticised agencies for not working together properly to protect
the life a vulnerable child named Victoria Climbe. As a result of her death the Green
Paper – Every Child Matters was published with the aims of working together to
safeguard children. Therefore this second part of this essay is going to illustrate why
partnership working and communication are important for the success of young
people and the YOTs, by first defining what partnership working is and reflective on
work based learning of how multi-agency is operated.

Partnership working involves working together between agencies in service delivery,

funding, and management; this is known as multi-agency or interagency working
(Souhami, 2008). In the youth offending team (YOT), Souhami claim that multi-
agency working is most developed there as they are made up with a number of
professionals including social services (youth workers, social workers and care
workers), education, police probation and health workers (Section 39 Crime and
Disorder Act, 1998) . This is crucial as it means that the maximum provision can be
given to aid the young offender’s need. However, there have been past challenges for
developing a multi-agency role which includes a worker of one profession having to
take, or being hired to do the role of another profession, for example a YOT working Commented [P13]: √
having to take up the role of a social work just so the aim of the YOT team can be
met; one person states “if I’d wanted to be a social worker on the YOT, I would have
train for one… it detracts what I am here for doesn’t it” (ibid).

In the case study of Jamie Bentley there will be a number of agencies involved, these
are as followed; a social worker as a result of domestic violence at home; drug worker
as he smokes up to £15 of cannabis daily; social care worker, as a result of being a
looked after child; accommodation officer as a result of homelessness [both parents
not wanting him in their home]; and education [head/teachers]. All these worker will
make up the YOT and will be working together closely with Jamie to ensure that all his
needs are met. For example, the social care workers can share his improvement in Commented [P14]: the social worker may not be
based in the YOT therefore communication becomes
key work sessions etc. with the school and negotiate with them to allow him more even more important
days at school.

Furthermore to measure accountability and effectiveness for multi-agency working in

Youth justice, continuous/routine monitoring, assessment and reflection should be
made and evidence of the effectiveness should be provided. Source of evidence can
include the practitioners’ views but more so the views of the young people involved.
Baker (2008) states that the experiences and outcomes of the young people can be
provided through the Asset profile information (YJB, 2008). Commented [P15]: √

Moreover, communication with young people and partnership agencies are crucial
because it helps build a purposeful relationship between the practitioners and
themselves. It shows the young person that their views are valued and allow them to
trust that their problems are being dealt with from every angle and ensure that their
needs are being met; in other words, it is important as it provides holistic support for
the young person (Baker, 2008; Cooper et al, 2007 cited in YJB, 2008). However, if

7
 Word count – Part 1: 1254, Part 2: 1028

the communication breaks down, trust can be broken and the need of the young
person will not be effectively addressed.

There are findings that support that organisation culture has both a positive and
negative impact on effective inter-agency working. Some service users particularly
parents, found it more beneficial and effective when practitioners from the same
cultural background as them are giving advice, speak the same language as them and
are of the same gender (Evans et al, 2006). This suggests that cultural sensitivity in
inter-agency working is effective for engagement. However, some young people
especially those from the Black and Minority Ethnic communities have a more positive
experience with practitioners of different cultural background as them (ibid).
Therefore, organisational can both be effective in inter-agency working for engaging
different cultures, especially those with a different language. Commented [P16]: useful information

Furthermore, the role of a youth offending worker is to reduce the risk of young
people and offending. The YOT are in charge of setting up community services for
young people who offend and arrange restoration plans to stop or reduce offending Commented [P17]: restorative or rehabilitation?
behaviour. They are in charge of supervising young people who the court has given Commented [P18]: would they do this in isolation lin
sentence for a Detention Training Order. They are to assess the young person from to the importance of partnership working if identifyi
and analysing risk
the beginning of the sentence and assessment much carry on even post sentence;
Commented [P19]: link to community sentences as
this is to ensure that the young person does not reoffend. The relationship of the YOT well
requires a great depth of multi-agency working. The Rees and Conalty’s 4 phase
resettlement model (2004) suggest that children and young people should be
assessed for risk from the moment they make contact with the youth justice system
and that while facing their sentence, strategic planning should be made to ensure that
as the young person is moving through custody, to the community sentence and back
into the community, they are able to transition smoothly. This will mean that the YOT Commented [P20]: good
will have to keep close contact with housing/accommodation officers if necessary,
keep parents engaged and informed, support the parents, and prepare the young
person for effective resettlement back into society. This is also supported by the
Integrated Resettlement Support (IRS, 2005) and the Youth Crime and Action Plan Commented [P21]: in many YOTS due to the budget
being devolved to the Local Authority IRS have
(YCAP, 2009). This shows that YOTs play a very important role in multi-agency effectively gone.
working which can help reduce offending behaviour.

In conclusion, Section 6 and 7 of the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) provides the
framework of partnership working and strategies to identify and tackle crime locally,
and section 36 provides a framework of how the YOTs can tackle youth offending.
Almost all legislation now focuses on integrated working through multi-agency and
interagency practice as a result of Lord Laming’s report (2003) that highlighted the
failure of working in coordination. This therefore shows that integrated working is
important as no single organisation can reduce crime alone, working together can
improve the quality of life through development of a wide-range of solutions (Audit
Commission). Commented [P22]: ref format

8
 Word count – Part 1: 1254, Part 2: 1028

REFERENCE LSIT

BATEMAN, T., PITTS, J., 2005. The RHP Companion to Youth Justice. Dorset: Rusell
house publishing

DfE, 2012. Key Elements of Integrated Working [online]. London: Crown. Available
at: http://www.education.gov.uk [Accessed 6th May 2014]

DUNHILL, A., ELLIOT B., and Shaw A., 2009. Effective Communication and
Engagement with Children and Young People, their Families and Carers. London:
SAGE

EGAN, G., 1985. The Skilled Helper: A Systematic Approach to Effective Helping. 3rd.
Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole.

HMGOV, 2009. Working together to safe guard children: a guide to inter-agency

working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. UK:HMGovernment.
Available at
https://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/Working%20Together
%20to%20Safeguard%20ChildrenV2.pdf [Accessed 6th May 2014]

LEGILATION, 2013. Children act 1989 [online]. UK: GOVUK. Available at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/youth-justice/accommodation/legislation-and-
responsibilities/children-act-1989 [Accessed 6th May 2014]

OPSI, 2004. The Children Act, 2004 [online]. Crown: London. Available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/31/contents [Accessed 6th May 2014]

ROGERS, C.R., 1951. Client-centred Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications and
Theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

YJB, 2008. Key Element of Effective Practice: engaging young people [ebook]. UK: YJB. Available via:
YJB resources [Accessed 6th May 2014]