{"id":1370,"date":"2015-06-15T14:22:11","date_gmt":"2015-06-15T13:22:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/?p=1370"},"modified":"2022-12-19T11:10:38","modified_gmt":"2022-12-19T11:10:38","slug":"youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cYouth Justice Practice is Just Messy\u201d Youth Offending Team Practitioners: Culture and Identity"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row row_height_percent=”0″ override_padding=”yes” h_padding=”2″ top_padding=”3″ bottom_padding=”2″ overlay_alpha=”50″ equal_height=”yes” gutter_size=”3″ column_width_use_pixel=”yes” shift_y=”0″ z_index=”0″ column_width_pixel=”1000″][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ position_horizontal=”left” gutter_size=”2″ override_padding=”yes” column_padding=”0″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ shift_y=”0″ shift_y_down=”0″ z_index=”0″ medium_width=”0″ align_mobile=”align_left_mobile” mobile_width=”0″ width=”2\/3″][vc_custom_heading text_font=”font-128611″ text_size=”h3″ text_weight=”500″ text_color=”color-210407″]Articles[\/vc_custom_heading][vc_separator sep_color=”color-210407″ el_height=”1px”][vc_custom_heading auto_text=”yes” text_font=”font-128611″ text_size=”h1″ text_weight=”500″ text_color=”accent”]This is a custom heading element.[\/vc_custom_heading][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Published<\/span><\/td>\n15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Type<\/td>\nArticle<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Author(s)<\/td>\nDr Rachel Morris<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Corresponding Authors<\/td>\nDr Rachel Morris, Lecturer in Social Policy and Crime, University of York<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DOA<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DOI<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

At a time when the Ministry of Justice has announced a ‘stock take’ (Puffett, 2014) of youth justice it is now more crucial than ever that attention is paid to the organisational culture of youth offending teams (YOTs) and the occupational identity of the practitioners that work within them. The organisational culture of a YOT can have a significant impact on the treatment that young people receive as interpretations on national policy are made on a local and individual level yet it has been a largely under-researched area in comparison to other key criminal justice agencies. This paper seeks to contribute to the limited literature on YOT practice cultures using empirical evidence from ethnographic based doctoral research. It will explore the reasons why practitioners do the job that they do and suggest that this can impact on key elements of YOT practice such as assessment. It is important that a coherent unified YOT practice culture exists within a YOT so that best outcomes for young people can be attained but this paper will present evidence to show that this can be difficult to achieve.[\/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner column_width_percent=”100″ gutter_size=”3″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ shift_y=”0″ shift_y_down=”0″ z_index=”0″ medium_width=”0″ align_mobile=”align_center_mobile” mobile_width=”0″ width=”1\/1″][uncode_share layout=”multiple” bigger=”yes” separator=”yes”][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]Introduction<\/strong>
\nThe delivery of youth justice services has an important and long standing relationship with\u00a0practitioners’ understanding of the philosophy underlying the aims of youth justice work.\u00a0Youth justice is an ever changing and evolving field of policy and practice. With its close\u00a0and somewhat unfortunate connections to political and media discourse, the philosophy\u00a0underpinning youth justice in England is never set. This means that with every\u00a0reconfiguration of the Youth Justice System (YJS), practitioners’ are expected to adapt and\u00a0reconfigure with it. The most recent legislative changes to the YJS (Criminal Justice and\u00a0Immigration Act 2008; Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012)\u00a0alongside the current period of economic recession have meant another reconfiguration\u00a0has been necessary. Currently policies in the YJS are underpinned by a risk-based\u00a0managerialism (Muncie et al., 2002; Pitts, 2003; O’Mahony, 2009; Bateman, 2011; Case &\u00a0Haines, 2015) yet on a local and individual level such practice does not necessarily follow\u00a0suit. This is due to the different interpretations local authorities make on policies from the\u00a0Youth Justice Board (YJB) leading to what many have termed as a ‘postcode lottery’\u00a0(Ramsbotham, as cited in Hill, 2012) of youth justice services. The nature of youth justice\u00a0is like a ‘pick and mix’ (Muncie, 2000:31) despite National Standards (YJB, 2013) being in\u00a0place; whereby instead of providing a set framework for all work with young people in the\u00a0system, the shifting philosophical and ideological foundations results in a constant status\u00a0of central ambiguity (Souhami, 2007; 2014).<\/p>\n

For practitioners, this ‘central ambiguity’ results in diverse and conflicting approaches to\u00a0the delivery of youth justice services. This is further complicated by the multi-agency\u00a0approach (as placed into statute by section 39.5, Crime and Disorder Act 1998) of YOTs; as\u00a0there are practitioners from organisations whose ethoses do not naturally blend well\u00a0together, for example, the police (public protection\/justice oriented) versus social services\u00a0(welfare oriented). The inherent nature of youth justice services is subsequently one of\u00a0contradiction or as Sarah, a YOT Social Worker described, ‘youth justice practice is just\u00a0messy.’ To practice in a YOT is to negotiate a consistent state of ambiguity; practitioners\u00a0have to balance their own beliefs, with that of the team and then situate that in the wider\u00a0ethos of the YJS. As Souhami (2007:193) states, ‘practitioners’ fluctuating and\u00a0contradictory understanding of what it was to be an occupational member was brought\u00a0into focus by the ‘ambiguous organisational position’ that they were required to adopt’. It\u00a0is therefore important to consider the organisational culture and occupational identity of\u00a0YOTs and YOT practitioners due to the influence it has on processes such as the writing of\u00a0assessments and designing of intervention plans, both key elements of YOT practice. Yet\u00a0such concepts have received little exploration in comparison with some of the other key\u00a0agencies of criminal justice. There is a vast body of research literature on the\u00a0organisational culture and occupational identity of police officers (Skolnick, 2008; Reiner,\u00a02010) and over recent years more research has emerged exploring prison officer culture\u00a0and identity (Crawley, 2004; Liebling et al., 2011) yet agencies such as probation (this has\u00a0recently started to change, see Mawby & Worrall, 2011) and YOTs have received much
\nless attention. Anna Souhami’s (2007) seminal work exploring the occupational culture\u00a0and identity of YOT practitioners has been the most detailed published account to date\u00a0which focused on exploring the transition of a former social services youth justice team\u00a0into a multi-agency YOT in 1999\/2000. Moreover, Burnett and Appleton (2004) as well as\u00a0Ellis and Boden (2004) have also explored YOT professional culture yet both concluded\u00a0that more research was needed in this area to explore key issues such as multi-agency\u00a0working and the values underpinning team practice. This paper seeks to explore the\u00a0organisational culture and occupational identity of YOTs and YOT\u00a0practitioners. It will\u00a0discuss what does it mean to be a member of a YOT and how do practitioners understand\u00a0their work, values and identity? It will also consider how explorations of culture and\u00a0identity can inform an understanding of the relationship between policy and practice.<\/p>\n

Research Methods<\/strong>
\nThe findings in this article are drawn from fourteen months of fieldwork undertaken\u00a0during 2012-13 for doctoral research which explored how the concept of ‘risk’ has\u00a0impacted on YOT practice. The research was an ethnographic, ‘step-in, step-out’\u00a0(Madden, 2010) study which involved five YOTs in the North of England. The study\u00a0comprised of over 300 hours of participant observation, 30 in-depth interviews with\u00a0practitioners, documentary analysis of 25 young people’s case files and YOT policy and\u00a0procedural documents and 8 case studies. The ‘step-in, step out’ approach is what\u00a0Madden (2010:80) describes as being the short-term and\/or not co-resident approach to\u00a0ethnography. When researching organisations where the time spent in the ‘field’ of study\u00a0is limited to ‘working hours’ (usually 9am to 5pm) the ‘step-in, step-out’ approach is\u00a0particularly suitable. Researching organisations can be particularly difficult to undertake\u00a0given the multiple levels of access that have to be negotiated. Following Buchanan et al.’s\u00a0(1988:53) advice an opportunistic approach to the fieldwork was adopted; this means that\u00a0any chances that were offered to collect data were undertaken, in the spirit of being\u00a0opportunistic. The way that data was collected unfolded as more and more time in ‘the\u00a0field’ was spent because as Pearson (1993:x) states, ‘there can be few if any hard-and-fast\u00a0rules for the successful conduct of ethnographic research’. The majority of the 14 months\u00a0in the field was spent undertaking participant observation in a variety of settings including\u00a0youth courts and YOT offices, attending team meetings, talking to practitioners and\u00a0reading documents including YOT policies and procedures as well as young people’s case\u00a0files. By triangulating these methods, a picture of YOT practice was able to be built up.<\/p>\n

YOT Practitioner Occupational Identity<\/strong>
\nThe culture of an organisation can be described as the values shared by individuals that\u00a0are noticeable in the practices of members of that occupation or organisation. There are\u00a0many different ways to define culture however for the purposes of this paper Schein’s\u00a0(2004:11) definition is helpful to set the parameters of interest:<\/p>\n

‘the deeper level of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by\u00a0members of an organisation, that operate unconsciously and define in a\u00a0basic taken-for-granted fashion an organisation’s view of itself and its\u00a0environment.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In order to account for some of the aspects of YOT practitioner behaviour and how a YOT\u00a0understands and deals with policy and practice change it is useful to explore the\u00a0organisation’s culture. It is common place to see in reports about criminal justice agencies\u00a0comments about the ‘organisational culture’ of the establishment and the attitudes of its\u00a0officers (particularly in relation to police and prison officers). YOT practitioners work in\u00a0tempestuous economic, political and social conditions. Working in the criminal justice\u00a0system (CJS) in roles requiring contact with offenders has often been classed as ‘dirty\u00a0work’ (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). Police officers (Reiner, 2010), prison officers (Liebling et\u00a0al., 2011) and most recently probation officers (Mawby & Worrall, 2011) have all been\u00a0cited as occupations of ‘necessary evil’; positions that involve doing morally questionable\u00a0work through liaising with stigmatised groups\/people, namely offenders. Like the\u00a0aforementioned occupations, YOT practitioners can also be seen to be doing society’s\u00a0‘dirty work’ dealing with children and young people who break the socially constructed\u00a0mould of what it is to be a ‘good child’ (Davies & Bourhill, 1997). It was clear from the\u00a0data collected that practitioners often viewed themselves as doing the work that no one\u00a0else wanted to do, working with young people and families characterised as ‘difficult’ and\u00a0‘hard to engage’. This raises the question of why do YOT practitioners do the job they do?\u00a0It is an important consideration as what became clear during the data collection process is\u00a0that why a person had become a YOT practitioner often helped to explain why some of\u00a0them had difficulties with certain policies and practices such as the Scaled Approach\u00a0(Sutherland, 2009; Morris, 2014). There were several reasons why YOT practitioners had\u00a0chosen to do the job they do. The ones which this article seeks to highlight are: wanting\u00a0to make a difference; wanting to do social work with young people in the CJS; and the\u00a0challenge of working with risk.<\/p>\n

Making a Difference<\/strong>
\nSome YOT practitioners were drawn to the job because they wanted to ‘make a\u00a0difference’; they held values that resulted in a strong belief in rehabilitation and that\u00a0young people could change. Similar to Reiner’s (2010:119) theme of ‘mission’ that he\u00a0observed in relation to police culture, to some YOT practitioners their occupation was\u00a0more than just a job, it was a vocation. These practitioners acknowledged that they had\u00a0to deal with a young person’s offending behaviour (usually through processes of\u00a0responsibilisation – see Kemshall, 2008) however concerns about a young person’s welfare\u00a0were more likely to take precedence:<\/p>\n

‘I really struggle with being a YOT practitioner at times as I have this quite\u00a0grounded youth work ethos in that I’m very welfare based. For me young people that come through our door are young people, full stop, then some\u00a0of the issues is that they’ve got offending behaviour.’ (Anna, YOT Worker)<\/p>\n

‘It’s the children’s side of it rather than the justice side of it, when we’re\u00a0talking about where you lean, where you come from, then it’s still very\u00a0welfary rather than like justice and being process driven.’ (Kate, YOT\u00a0Worker)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Practitioners who reasoned that it was ‘to make a difference’ as to why they practiced in\u00a0youth justice were far more likely to be at odds with the system then some of their\u00a0colleagues (particularly some police officers). Often the practitioners who fell into this\u00a0category had a youth worker background where their training and experience had been\u00a0centred on the empowerment of young people. This and these practitioners therefore\u00a0often found themselves in conflict with practitioners from a probation\/police background\u00a0for example, who had been ‘educated’ and developed a practice which was much more\u00a0risk-based. YOT practitioners, who are agents of the court, are required to have due\u00a0regard for the welfare of a child\/young person as defined by section 44 of the Children’s\u00a0and Young Person Act 1933. There has been a longstanding conflict between this and\u00a0other aspects of the CJS such as public protection and punishment. Anna and Kate both\u00a0who had training in youth work, talked about having difficulty with the enforcement\u00a0element of their job, because it goes against their welfare oriented approach to making a\u00a0difference:<\/p>\n

‘One of things that I really struggled with was if they don’t conform, if they\u00a0don’t make so many appointments, we’ve got to go through breach.’ (Anna,\u00a0YOT Worker)<\/p>\n

‘I don’t like the enforcement side of it; if somebody comes because they\u00a0have to then that that is a barrier to engagement in the first place.’ (Kate,\u00a0YOT Worker)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Both practitioners spoke about being ‘creative’ in terms of working around the system to\u00a0get the best outcomes for the young people they were working with. For Kate, in\u00a0particular, she felt that if the enforcement process ever did get any more comfortable for\u00a0her then she would not be being true to herself and her beliefs. Practitioners, who had\u00a0difficulties with the enforcement side of things and were ‘creative’ in trying to engage\u00a0young people, often did it at the expense of working with their colleagues as Carrie\u00a0explains:<\/p>\n

‘Some workers are better on breach then others in terms of being quick.\u00a0Some workers are very laid back, ‘oh yeah he might need breaching for that’\u00a0and it’s like no if you don’t breach him now it has a knock on effects for the\u00a0other kids. This is the problem we’ve got at the moment because this young\u00a0person wasn’t breached straight away, if he’d been in court like 2 days ago he\u00a0wouldn’t have committed a burglary last night with another young person and\u00a0that other young person now wouldn’t be looking at custody.’ (Carrie, YOT\u00a0Worker)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Carrie, a YOT worker who had a similar view of wanting to help young people like Anna\u00a0and Kate, strongly felt that another colleague’s reactive rather than proactive approach,\u00a0what she terms ‘laid back’ had resulted in her young person now being placed in a\u00a0situation where custody was a likely outcome. She went further to state that there would\u00a0be a discussion with the management team about it:<\/p>\n

‘There will be because I’m not happy about it; I will be discussing it higher\u00a0because I think another young person wouldn’t have to go to prison if\u00a0another worker had acted faster which annoys the hell out of me but it is\u00a0about being on the ball all the time. You have to be kind of paced with it\u00a0and if you’re not, if you’re a bit more laid back and you think ah it’ll all work\u00a0out, then this happens.’ (Carrie, YOT Worker)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Social Work with Young People in the CJS<\/strong>
\nOther practitioners did the job because they were interested in the CJS and social work\u00a0with young people therefore being a YOT practitioner was the perfect position for them.\u00a0These practitioners still had a somewhat welfare-oriented approach yet were more\u00a0interested and accepting of the risk-based approach that the YJS has become enshrined in.<\/p>\n

‘The support aspect of it and the affecting change aspect of it is the job role\u00a0that I like. Obviously it ticks my box in terms of, I like working with young\u00a0people, I’m interested in why young people offend, why some can go\u00a0through what we would class as risk factors and don’t offend and some do.’\u00a0(Megan, YOT Social Worker)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

‘I used to be a part time youth worker for about seven years. Then I thought\u00a0I wanna go to uni and do social work. I wanted to work with teenagers and\u00a0have a link to crime so youth justice was the ideal, it worked out perfect\u00a0really.’ (Sarah, YOT Social Worker)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Those practitioners who were recently social work qualified and were particularly new to\u00a0the job (less than 5 years’ experience), had been trained to undertake assessments and\u00a0complete large quantities of paperwork; to them it was a key aspect of the role:<\/p>\n

‘I’m a trained qualified social worker, I am welfare based through and\u00a0through but I’m also working with children who pose a risk to other people,\u00a0so you cannot avoid risk assessment.’ (Megan, YOT Social Worker)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This acceptance of the need for large quantities of paperwork and, more critically, the riskbased\u00a0approach which many practitioners who viewed YOT as a vocation considered to be\u00a0negatively focused, caused the clashes between these two groups of practitioners.2* The\u00a0different backgrounds, levels of training, experience and qualification were often at the\u00a0root cause of many of the conflicts witnessed; to several practitioners this had worsened\u00a0since the introduction of the predominately risk-based scaled approach (Morris, 2014).<\/p>\n

The Challenge of Working with Risk<\/strong>
\nThe third reason that practitioners spoke about as being the purpose that they do the\u00a0work was that they enjoyed the challenge and unpredictable nature of the role. Several\u00a0practitioners commented that the unpredictability, whilst at times frustrating and causing\u00a0difficulties, was an element of the job that they enjoyed. They viewed themselves as not\u00a0being suited to a traditional office based 9-5 job and liked that they were challenged on a\u00a0daily basis. It can be argued that the challenge and unpredictable nature of the job was\u00a0also the reason that they stayed in the role as much as they argued it was the reason they\u00a0had entered the service to begin with. The idea of liking the challenge was also connected\u00a0to the notion of risk and holding the higher risk cases\/young people. Such cases were\u00a0particularly sought after by those workers, who liked a challenge and wanted to undertake\u00a0intensive work with young people and families:<\/p>\n

‘Being here that long I do all the big cases really, I manage the high risk ones,\u00a0custody ones, I love it.’ (Sarah, YOT Social Worker)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To those who were not considered to be ‘qualified’ to hold such cases, the wanting of the\u00a0challenge was the reason why they had undertaken additional training or were actively\u00a0seeking promotion:<\/p>\n

‘I’m hoping there’s a permanent post coming through the system at the\u00a0moment. I’ll be applying for that, I would really like to continue being [in a\u00a0qualified post] because it means that we get to work with the more risky\u00a0young people and more complex needs.’ (Anna, YOT Worker)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For team members of the YOT who were seconded in from other agencies such as the\u00a0police and probation service, the challenging nature of working with young people was\u00a0often the reason they cited for having applied for the secondment:<\/p>\n

‘An opportunity arose for an internal secondment to be the youth\u00a0involvement officer so really for 9 years I’ve been working with young\u00a0people. Once I did that over at the police station I liked it, I had a good\u00a0rapport with kids, I wasn’t all about lets lock them up, it was the case of\u00a0what can we do so that they won’t do what they’re doing anymore. A job\u00a0came up here at the YOT, I applied for it and I just thought I’ve dealt with\u00a0the younger ones and it was sort of like a step to dealing with the older ones\u00a0who were actually coming into contact with the system more.’ (Matt, YOT\u00a0Seconded Police Officer)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Despite initially ‘taking stick’ from his colleagues in the police for ‘getting a nice cushy desk\u00a0job,’ Matt relished his work as a YOT seconded police officer and was particularly proud of\u00a0the reputation he had obtained for being successful in working with young people who\u00a0had sexually offended. By being willing to embrace the challenge of working with young\u00a0people who have offended, some practitioners were able to have a chance at a second\u00a0career. This appeared particularly significant amongst some of the seconded probation\u00a0officers. It was a common theme that they felt as though probation had changed and the\u00a0way of working that was expected of them now was no longer matching the reason why\u00a0they had gotten into the occupation to begin with:<\/p>\n

‘I much prefer working with young people as a probation officer; certainly in\u00a0my time of being a probation officer where the philosophy and ethos of the\u00a0role which traditionally was based on the principle of advice, assist and\u00a0befriend got replaced with offender management and risk management,\u00a0protecting the public and victim centralisation, all of which is complete\u00a0rubbish. For many years prior to probation I was involved in the community\u00a0voluntary sector, I’ve always worked with children and young people in one\u00a0form or another so my natural meaning was to aim to work with young\u00a0people professionally. So hence this and the role of the probation officer in\u00a0the YOT was far more akin to my feeling of what the role of what a\u00a0probation officer should be anyway i.e. getting your hands dirty and you\u00a0know actually daring to go and spend some time with an offender.’ (George,\u00a0Probation Officer)<\/p>\n

George had been seconded to YOT as a probation officer twice within the last nine years.\u00a0It was a position which he really enjoyed because he preferred ‘getting [his] hands dirty’\u00a0something that probation work no longer provided (Mawby & Worrall, 2011). Mawby and\u00a0Worrall (2011:9) found in their study exploring the occupational culture of probation\u00a0workers that ‘beneath the surface, was a principled rehabilitative approach to working\u00a0with offenders and a readiness to move on to other jobs if they were not allowed to work\u00a0in the way that they wanted.’ This perhaps could explain why several of the seconded\u00a0probation officers, including George, felt that working in probation was no longer fulfilling\u00a0and that they needed to take their skills and values elsewhere. Joining the YOT provided\u00a0such an opportunity.<\/p>\n

Discussion and Conclusion<\/strong>
\nThis research has identified that YOT practitioners come from a variety of backgrounds\u00a0and walks of life, with the reasons why they do they job they do being varied. The above\u00a0three groupings are the collation of the most common reasons practitioners discussed\u00a0being the motivation behind why they do, and for the most part, enjoy the job that they\u00a0do. It is important that there is a shared orientation to youth offending work; there needs\u00a0to be a common ‘ideology of unity’ (Crawford, 1994) amongst all practitioners in the YOT\u00a0so that positive outcomes can be achieved for young people involved in the service. A\u00a0shared understanding of principles and goals of youth offending team work is also seen as\u00a0an essential part of team membership (Souhami, 2007:49). This is because, according to\u00a0Parker (2000:86) by having a shared ethos or common understanding, the categories of\u00a0‘us’ and ‘them’ are defined; it sets the boundaries of the team. The problems of having a\u00a0shared orientation to youth offending work were first identified as YOTs began to be\u00a0created in 1999\/2000 by numerous authors including Souhami (2007), Burnett and\u00a0Appleton (2004) and Ellis and Boden (2004). Even the Home Office’s own commissioned\u00a0research into the evaluation of the pilot YOTs found that there were ‘cultural hang-overs’\u00a0from previous youth justice practice, including disagreements over the implementation of\u00a0case working and resistance to management over attempts to introduce evidence-based\u00a0practice (Holdaway et al., 2001). It is clear that these ‘cultural hang-overs’ (Holdaway et\u00a0al., 2001) have never disappeared from YOT practice as there are still key unresolved\u00a0issues within YOT work. What is the purpose of YOT work? Is to prevent offending, to\u00a0reduce reoffending, to deliver justice, to look out for a young person’s welfare? These\u00a0common underlying tensions within youth justice policy have helped to create a system\u00a0whereby the very nature of its work is ‘ambiguous’ (Souhami, 2007). How then are\u00a0practitioners expected to practice and work with young people if the very nature of their\u00a0work is undefinable?<\/p>\n

Souhami (2007), found that the relationships practitioners have with other agencies in the\u00a0CJS [which can be varied and still fifteen years post-YOT creation be based upon who you\u00a0know rather than formal arrangements] and the state plus the values, aims and\u00a0technologies of their work are all unsettled, creating this ambiguous nature. Most\u00a0practitioners regardless of their professional or personal background do share common\u00a0values and views of the reasons why young people offend in the first instance, poverty,\u00a0poor parenting, lack of boundaries, school exclusion and negative labelling were all\u00a0commonly cited as the causes of offending. What practitioners disagree upon is the best\u00a0way to deal with such behaviour and of particular relevance as to whether a risk-led\u00a0approach is the best way (Morris, 2014). Meyerson (1991:131) argues that:<\/p>\n

‘Members who do not agree on clear boundaries, cannot identify shared\u00a0solutions and do not reconcile contradictory beliefs and multiple identities.\u00a0Ambiguity is thus ‘normal’: it comprises the ‘essence of their cultural\u00a0community.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The ambiguous nature of YOTs, driven by the individualised and indeterminate nature of\u00a0YOT practice is what makes them unique and arguably successful in what they do. The\u00a0flexibility that the ambiguity promotes is particularly important given the complex nature\u00a0of the lives that some of the young people who YOTs come in to contact with have,\u00a0meaning that YOT practitioners need to be able to adapt and use a mix of styles\/ways of\u00a0practice in order to help them. The reasons why practitioners do the job that they do, in\u00a0particular where they sit on the welfare vs. justice continuum, influences their practice. The challenge for YOT practitioners is how they reconcile their own professional values\u00a0and find a common way to work together in the context of a multi-disciplinary team. This\u00a0challenge is exemplified by Carrie, Anna and Kate in that how without robust, open,\u00a0discussions of values, professional identity and ideal working relationships, practitioners\u00a0can become labelled as ‘laid back’ or worse be practicing without a full understanding of\u00a0the position in which they are operating from.3*\u00a0As the aims of youth justice policy remain\u00a0ambiguous (Souhami, 2007), practitioners use their own background and viewpoints on\u00a0how children in conflict with the law should be treated to construct assessments and\u00a0devise intervention plans; this means that a consideration of YOT practice cultures is of\u00a0crucial importance prior to policies and new practices being implemented.<\/p>\n

2*\u00a0Those who considered YOT a vocation and those who were interested in criminal justice\/young\u00a0people and more recently qualified in social work.<\/p>\n

3*\u00a0I am grateful to a reviewer for suggesting these last two sentences.<\/p>\n

References<\/h3>\n

Ashforth B. and Kreiner G. (1999) ‘How can you do it?’ Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity’,\u00a0Academy of Management Journal<\/em>, 24(3), 413-434.
\nBateman, T. (2011) ‘Punishing Poverty: The ‘Scaled Approach’ and Youth Justice Practice’,\u00a0The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice<\/em>, 50(2), 171-183.
\nBuchanan, D., Boddy, D. and McCalman, J. (1988) ‘Getting In, Getting On, Getting Out and Getting Back’,\u00a0in\u00a0<\/em>A. Bryman (Ed.)\u00a0Doing Research in Organisations,<\/em>\u00a0Abingdon: Routledge, 53-67.
\nBurnett, R. and Appleton, C. (2004)\u00a0Joined-up Youth Justice: Tackling Youth Crime in Partnership<\/em>, Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.
\nCase, S. and Haines, K. (2015) ‘Risk Management and Early Intervention: A Critical Analysis’,\u00a0in\u00a0<\/em>Goldson, B. and Muncie, J. (2015)\u00a0Youth Crime and Justice<\/em>, 2nd edition, London: Sage, 100-119.
\nCrawford, A. (1994) ‘The Partnership Approach: Corporatism at the Local Level?’,\u00a0Social and Legal Studies<\/em>, 3, 497-519.
\nCrawley, E. (2004)\u00a0Doing Prison Work: The Public and Private Lives of Prison Officers,<\/em>\u00a0Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
\nDavis, H. and Bourhill, M. (1997) ‘Crisis’: The Demonization of Children and Young People’,\u00a0in\u00a0<\/em>Scraton, P (Ed.) ‘Childhood’ in ‘Crisis’?<\/em>, London: University College London, 28-58.
\nEllis, T. and Boden, E. (2004)\u00a0‘Is there a Unifying Professional Culture in Youth Offending Teams?<\/em>\u00a0A Research Note, Vol. 7. Selected papers from the 2004 British Criminology Conference, Portsmouth July 2004 (available at http:\/\/britsoccrim.org\/new\/?q=node\/30)
\nHill, A. (2012)\u00a0‘Former prisons inspector condemns probation service reform plans’,<\/em>\u00a0The Observer, 24 June 2012.
\nHoldaway, S., Davidson, N., Dignan, J., Hammersley, R., Hine, J. and Marsh, P. (2001)\u00a0New Strategies to Address Youth Offending: The National Evaluation of the Pilot Youth Offending Teams,<\/em>\u00a0London: Home Office (Research, Development and Statistics Directorate Paper No. 69).
\nKemshall, H. (2008) ‘Risks, Rights and Justice: Understanding and Responding to Youth Risk,\u00a0Youth Justice,<\/em>\u00a08(1), 21-37.
\nLiebling, A., Price, D. and Shefer, G. (2011)\u00a0The Prison Officer,<\/em>\u00a02nd edition, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
\nMadden, R. (2010)\u00a0Being Ethnographic: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Ethnography,<\/em>\u00a0London: Sage.
\nMawby, R. C. and Worrall, A. (2011)\u00a0Probation Workers and Their Occupational Culture<\/em>, Leicester: University of Leicester.
\nMawby, R. C. and Worrall, A. (2013)\u00a0Doing Probation Work: Identity in a Criminal Justice Occupation<\/em>, Abingdon: Routledge (Routledge Frontiers of Criminal Justice).
\nMeyerson, D. (1991) ‘”Normal” Ambiguity? A Glimpse of an Occupational Culture’,\u00a0in\u00a0<\/em>Frost, P. J., Moore, L., Louis, M., Lundberg, C. and Martin, J. (Eds.)\u00a0Reframing Organizational Culture<\/em>, Newbury Park: Sage, 131-145.
\nMorris, R. (2014)\u00a0Did Fools Rush In? Exploring Youth Offending Team Practitioners views of the Scaled Approach to Youth Justice,\u00a0<\/em>PhD. Thesis [unpublished], University of Lancaster.
\nMuncie, J. (2000) ‘Pragmatic Realism? Searching for Criminology in the New Youth Justice’, in Goldson, B. (Ed.)\u00a0The New Youth Justice,\u00a0<\/em>Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.
\nMuncie, J., Hughes, G. and McLaughlin, E. (Eds.) (2002)\u00a0Youth Justice: Critical Readings,<\/em>\u00a0London: Sage.
\nO’Mahony, P. (2009) ‘The Risk Factors Prevention Paradigm and the Causes of Youth Crime: A Deceptively Useful Analysis?’\u00a0Youth Justice,<\/em>\u00a09(2), 99-114.
\nParker, M. (2000)\u00a0Organisational Culture and Identity: Unity and Division at Work,\u00a0<\/em>London: Sage.
\nPearson, G. (1993) [2002 reprint] ‘Talking a Good Fight: Authenticity and Distance in the Ethnographer’s Craft’,\u00a0in\u00a0<\/em>Hobbs, D. and May, T (Eds.) (1993) [2002 reprint)\u00a0Interpreting the Field: Accounts of Ethnography,<\/em>\u00a0Oxford: Oxford University Press, vii-xx.
\nPitts, J. (2003)\u00a0The New Politics of Youth Crime: Discipline or Solidarity?<\/em>, Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.
\nPuffett, N. (2014)\u00a0‘Government launches review of YOTs’, Children and Young People Now,\u00a0<\/em>http:\/\/www.cypnow.co.uk\/cyp\/news\/1148224\/yot-stocktake-assess-services-evolve, accessed 24th April 2015.
\nReiner, R. (2010)\u00a0The Politics of the Police,<\/em>\u00a04th edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
\nSchein, E. (2004)\u00a0Organisational Culture and Leadership,\u00a0<\/em>3rd edition, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
\nSkolnick, J. H. (2008) ‘Enduring Issues of Police Culture and Demographics’,\u00a0Policing and Society,<\/em>\u00a018(1), 35-45.
\nSouhami, A. (2007)\u00a0Transforming Youth Justice: Occupational Identity and Cultural Change,<\/em>\u00a0Cullompton: Willan Publishing.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ gutter_size=”2″ override_padding=”yes” column_padding=”2″ back_color=”color-lxmt” overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ shift_y=”0″ shift_y_down=”0″ z_index=”0″ medium_width=”0″ mobile_width=”0″ width=”1\/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1593440492913{padding-right: 26px !important;padding-left: 26px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading heading_semantic=”h3″ text_font=”font-128611″ text_size=”h4″ text_weight=”500″ text_color=”color-210407″]Latest Issue[\/vc_custom_heading][uncode_index el_id=”index-163686″ loop=”size:1|order_by:date|post_type:post|categories:3″ gutter_size=”3″ post_items=”title,date” screen_lg=”1000″ screen_md=”600″ screen_sm=”480″ single_text=”overlay” single_style=”dark” single_overlay_opacity=”50″ single_overlay_anim=”no” single_text_visible=”yes” single_text_anim=”no” single_h_align_mobile=”left” single_padding=”0″ single_title_family=”font-128611″ single_title_dimension=”h4″ single_title_weight=”500″][vc_button button_color=”accent” size=”btn-xl” radius=”btn-square” wide=”yes” custom_typo=”yes” font_family=”font-128611″ font_weight=”500″ border_width=”0″ link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fmmuperu.co.uk%2Fbjcj%2Fnewsletter%2F|title:Newsletter||”]Subscribe to our Newsletter[\/vc_button][vc_raw_html]JTNDYSUyMGNsYXNzJTNEJTIydHdpdHRlci10aW1lbGluZSUyMiUyMGRhdGEtd2lkdGglM0QlMjI0MDAlMjIlMjBkYXRhLWhlaWdodCUzRCUyMjU0NSUyMiUyMGhyZWYlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRnR3aXR0ZXIuY29tJTJGYmpjb21tdW5pdHlqdXN0JTNGcmVmX3NyYyUzRHR3c3JjJTI1NUV0ZnclMjIlM0VUd2VldHMlMjBieSUyMGJqY29tbXVuaXR5anVzdCUzQyUyRmElM0UlMjAlM0NzY3JpcHQlMjBhc3luYyUyMHNyYyUzRCUyMmh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGcGxhdGZvcm0udHdpdHRlci5jb20lMkZ3aWRnZXRzLmpzJTIyJTIwY2hhcnNldCUzRCUyMnV0Zi04JTIyJTNFJTNDJTJGc2NyaXB0JTNF[\/vc_raw_html][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At a time when the Ministry of Justice has announced a ‘stock take’ (Puffett, 2014) of youth justice it is now more crucial than ever that attention is paid to the organisational culture of youth offending teams (YOTs) and the occupational identity of the practitioners that work within them.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1370","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n\u201cYouth Justice Practice is Just Messy\u201d Youth Offending Team Practitioners: Culture and Identity - BJCJ<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u201cYouth Justice Practice is Just Messy\u201d Youth Offending Team Practitioners: Culture and Identity - BJCJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"At a time when the Ministry of Justice has announced a 'stock take' (Puffett, 2014) of youth justice it is now more crucial than ever that attention is paid to the organisational culture of youth offending teams (YOTs) and the occupational identity of the practitioners that work within them.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BJCJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-06-15T13:22:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-12-19T11:10:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Nathan Monk\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Nathan Monk\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Nathan Monk\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061\"},\"headline\":\"\u201cYouth Justice Practice is Just Messy\u201d Youth Offending Team Practitioners: Culture and Identity\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-06-15T13:22:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-12-19T11:10:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":5338,\"commentCount\":0,\"articleSection\":[\"Articles\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\\\/\",\"name\":\"\u201cYouth Justice Practice is Just Messy\u201d Youth Offending Team Practitioners: Culture and Identity - BJCJ\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-06-15T13:22:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-12-19T11:10:38+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/\",\"name\":\"BJCJ\",\"description\":\"British Journal of Community Justice\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061\",\"name\":\"Nathan Monk\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Nathan Monk\"},\"description\":\"I'm proud to work for some of the world\u2019s most influential brands that shape cities and define lives: Universities and colleges. I provide advice to forward-thinking senior leaders on how to exceed their organisational targets by creating user-focused, digital-first strategies.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/sleek.bio\\\/n\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/nathansmonk\\\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/author\\\/nathansmonk\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"\u201cYouth Justice Practice is Just Messy\u201d Youth Offending Team Practitioners: Culture and Identity - BJCJ","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u201cYouth Justice Practice is Just Messy\u201d Youth Offending Team Practitioners: Culture and Identity - BJCJ","og_description":"At a time when the Ministry of Justice has announced a 'stock take' (Puffett, 2014) of youth justice it is now more crucial than ever that attention is paid to the organisational culture of youth offending teams (YOTs) and the occupational identity of the practitioners that work within them.","og_url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\/","og_site_name":"BJCJ","article_published_time":"2015-06-15T13:22:11+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-12-19T11:10:38+00:00","author":"Nathan Monk","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Nathan Monk","Estimated reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\/"},"author":{"name":"Nathan Monk","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#\/schema\/person\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061"},"headline":"\u201cYouth Justice Practice is Just Messy\u201d Youth Offending Team Practitioners: Culture and Identity","datePublished":"2015-06-15T13:22:11+00:00","dateModified":"2022-12-19T11:10:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\/"},"wordCount":5338,"commentCount":0,"articleSection":["Articles"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\/","url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\/","name":"\u201cYouth Justice Practice is Just Messy\u201d Youth Offending Team Practitioners: Culture and Identity - BJCJ","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-06-15T13:22:11+00:00","dateModified":"2022-12-19T11:10:38+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#\/schema\/person\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/youth-justice-practice-is-just-messy-youth-offending-team-practitioners-culture-and-identity\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#website","url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/","name":"BJCJ","description":"British Journal of Community Justice","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#\/schema\/person\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061","name":"Nathan Monk","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Nathan Monk"},"description":"I'm proud to work for some of the world\u2019s most influential brands that shape cities and define lives: Universities and colleges. I provide advice to forward-thinking senior leaders on how to exceed their organisational targets by creating user-focused, digital-first strategies.","sameAs":["https:\/\/sleek.bio\/n","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/nathansmonk\/"],"url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/author\/nathansmonk\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1370","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1370"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1370\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2828,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1370\/revisions\/2828"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1370"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1370"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1370"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}