Digestión de los alimentos

Based upon the YOTs involved in the research there does appear to be support for Khan and Wilson’s forms of provision (2010). Whilst there are some differences between the given forms and the YOTs in the research, this is not to the extent that Khan and Wilson’s theory is invalidated. It must be remembered when using these forms of provision that they are ideal types, as the YOT changes regularly and so they may not mirror provision exactly but can act as a guide. Indeed, they are useful for understanding the level of mental health provision within a YOT and how it compares to others.

Of the six forms of provision introduced by Khan and Wilson, all six were found being applied in practice. The lone worker, foot-in-foot-out, health team within a YOT, and external one-stop- health-shop approaches were most closely mirrored by practice, with YOTs using provision that was very similar to that described by Khan and Wilson. The virtual locality and outreach consultative approaches were also found in practice, but these differed from the descriptions somewhat. The use of the outreach consultative format in an urban rather than rural area shows that it is applicable in locations where logistics impacts upon provision, and that it is a flexible format for provision. The virtual locality form of provision was not found in a way that directly mirrored the description by Khan and Wilson, lacking the ‘virtual teams’. The provision in Woodshire matched the description in all other aspects though and fitted this format more closely than any others.

There were certain aspects that occurred across all the types of provision, in some cases these developed into themes in further analysis. It appears that mental health workers all face similar issues when working in/with the YOS, but the extent of these issues varies across the differing forms of provision. The forms with lower levels of resources (lone worker, foot-in-foot-out) have more problems with meeting need than others. This is to be expected though due to the level of resources. It is interesting that theses YOTs also seemed to have cultures that did not promote social justice and mental health approaches, and management was less supportive of mental health workers in these YOTs than those with higher resource levels. It is unclear if having more mental health resources allows mental health workers to be active and vocal about their professional needs and thus gain better structures and support for their work, or if managers and commissioners created provision that better supports mental health workers. The implication of this is that YOTs with high levels of mental health resources are better able to not only work in a socially just manner, but also to meet the needs of young people than YOTs with lower levels of resources.

From viewing the various forms of provision in practice, it is clear that the types with greater numbers of mental health workers are more effective than those with a single mental health worker. The ‘lone worker’ and ‘foot-in-foot-out’ provisions create issues of accessibility. There is also additional risk of mental health workers having the boundaries of their role compromised, as was the case in Westley, where Dan had been asked to act as a youth justice worker, managing the cases of a number of young people. Foot-in-foot-out provision may work

more successfully with two members of staff operation in a job share context. However, none of the participating YOTs could provide evidence of this, so the practicalities of this approach and the impact on social justice remains unclear.

Other forms of provision were better able to meet the needs of young people. Whilst all the YOTs participating faced similar issues, this disparity is likely to have arisen from the core structure of the YOS and then exacerbated and/or mitigated by the level and form of mental health provision. One of the aims of this work is to suggest a baseline level of mental health provision for the YOS. This baseline must be considerate of two factors, one being the ability to balance criminal and social justice within practice in a way that allows young offenders access to services, and secondly, that the baseline is practically achievable given the structures of YOTs and CAMHS. Whilst ideally a ‘health team within a YOT’ or ‘virtual locality’ form of provision would be a minimum, this is not practically achievable within many localities. Funding has consistently been an issue within the YOS (Smyth, 2010), and recently CAMHS has been subject to large cuts (Young Minds, 2014). Allocating three full time staff to the YOS will not be possible in many areas. Allowing for concerns of practicality, it is suggested that a ‘foot-in-foot-out’ provision with two mental health workers could be an appropriate baseline, with the proviso that better resourced provision is a long-term goal.

Whilst none of the forms of provision are inherently wrong or inappropriate, it seems that some are more adept at catering to the needs of young people than others. For example, the lone worker and foot-in-foot-out types generally utilise one mental health worker, which creates problems of accessibility if they are ill or away for any reason, or even if they are busy working with a young person. It seems that these forms of provision are not actively chosen by YOTs, but occur due to a lack of resources. So whilst it is suggested that mental health provision within the YOS has a minimum standard of a foot-in-foot-out format with two workers, this may not always be possible.

This part of the analysis gave some insight into the ways in which social justice is impacted by provision. Through identifying the different forms of provision, how each relates to social justice in practice could be seen on a superficial level. Factors such as resource levels and

working cultures play a role in the promotion of social justice within YOTs, but it is not clear how these factors are related. From this preliminary analysis further questions can be asked of the data relating to social justice and how this is linked to aspects of practice.

A variety of factors affect mental health practice and provision which were explored in detail in the thematic analysis. The main points to take from this initial discussion of the data is that there is support for Khan and Wilson’s (2010) forms of provision, and that there are differences between the forms that affect levels of social justice in the YOS.