Youth Offending Risk Screening Tool (YORST)

Why When How

Session Outline

Risk Screening…what is it and why are we doing it?

Pilot data - Who are the children and young people being screened- What are offending related needs

Where to from here

What is it?

Risk screening is the systematic evaluation of the likelihood of a child or young person offending.

It helps identify those young people who are most likely to persist with their offending and anti-social behaviour.

Can also highlight factors that contribute to the offending and provide the foundation for a targeted and appropriate response.

The YORST

Offending Peer Group Education/Employment Care & Protection History Alcohol and/or Drug Use Family

History

Need to identify high risk children and young people as early as possible to provide an appropriate and effective intervention (Choy review 2002).

Youth Offending Strategy (2002) recommended a process for systematic & consistent risk screening of young offenders.

Police Response

In December 2003 a Risk Screening Tool (also known as ARNI) was developed by Youth Aid Officers for Youth Aid Officers to use with young offenders.

The tool was distributed for use - the planned trial period was not reviewed and the tool was not evaluated.

No standard model of practice across Districts

Review

Stage One: A brief review of the literature – is it good practice? Enquiry into the current use of the tool Adaptations to the tool based on literature and practitioner

feedback. A six month pilot of the revised tool Stage Two: Data analysis to ascertain the reliability and validity of the tool Adaptations to the tool based on validity testing Refinement of policy and procedures for the use of the tool National roll-out of the tool as a web-based electronic form.

Best Practice?

Large body of research – agreement on major risk factors for criminal behaviour.

Greater number of factors – higher the risk.

Distinguish between types of offenders to ensure appropriate level of response given and precious resources can be allocated to where there is the most need.

But I do this in my head anyway…

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

ClinicalJudgement

FormalAssessment

Summary of studies on effectiveness of clinical judgement vs formal assessment (Grove & Meehl, 1996).

Feedback from Users

It is a good trigger to do the queries that I may not otherwise

do but are important to doing a good job

More information gathered Assists with consistent practice

It is good for ensuring that all staff are

looking for the right things

Guides the response that we and other

agencies give to the young person.

Focus on addressing the causes

Reinforces the idea of causal factors rather than solely focusing

on the incident.

Increased understanding between agencies

Increases the understanding

across agencies about what a high

risk kid means

Definitely beneficial, it gives everyone a clearer picture of where the kid fits

Pilot in Bay of Plenty & Waikato Police Districts

25 Youth Aid sites

All child offenders (10-13 years) at 2nd offence.

All youth offenders being referred for Youth Justice Family Group Conference (including arrest)

All child offenders being referred to Child Youth & Family for care and protection due to serious offending.

Interface with Child, Youth & Family

Providing information about the risk level of young people is critical for their decision making around allocating social workers and administering more in-depth assessments.

YORST provided at referral meeting (consultation).

Preliminary Data from Pilot

465 YORSTs

Range of Scores

Spread of YORST Scores

0

5

10

15

20

0 - 1

0%

10 -

20%

20 -

30%

30 -

40%

40 -

50%

50 -

60%

60 -

70%

70 -

80%

80 -

90%

90 -

100%

Scores

% o

f C

hil

dre

n &

Yo

un

g

Peo

ple

AgeYORST Ages

(n=465)

4%

29%

5%5%

7%

12%

20%18%

Age 0 -10

Age 11

Age 12

Age 13

Age 14

Age 15

Age 16

Age 17

GenderYORST Genders

74%

26%

MaleFemale

EthnicityYORST Major Ethnicity

73%

0%

0%

2%

25%

European

Pacific Peoples

Asian

Other

Maori

Crime Offences: 1000-LevelSummary of Crime Offences by 1000 Level

Category

21%2%

5%

46%

6%

2%

0%

9%

9%

1000 (violence)

2000 (sexual)

3000 (drugs & anti soc)

4000 (dishonesty)

5000 (property dam & new drugs)

6000 (property abuses)

7000 (administrative)

Traffic

Incidents

Time since last came to noticeYORST Time Since Last Came to Notice for Offending

8%

33%

14%

28%

5%

12%

Under 1 mth Since Offending

1 to 6 mths Since Offending

Less than 1 yr Since Offending

1 to 2 yrs Since Offending

Over 2 yrs Since Offending

No previous

Age at First OffenceAt What Age was Offending First Reported to Police?

13%

7% 10%

20%

35%

15%

Aged Under10Aged 10 to 12

Aged 13

Aged 14

Aged 15+

No offences

Nature of MOIs the Nature (MO) of Current or Previous Offending of a Concerning Nature?

16%

38%

22%

17%

7%

Extreme Concern

High Concern

Medium Concern

Low Concern

Very Low Concern

Influential PeersInfluential Peers Known to Police?

18%

4% 9%

18%

23%

28%

All known repeat offenders

Many known

Some known

Very few known

None

Unknown

School / Employment

Current School / Education / Course or Employment Status

48; 10%

92; 20%

18; 4%

61; 13%

23; 5%82; 18%

141; 30%Not attending (school/job)Stood down / suspended

Irregular attendance

Mostly attends

Full time some issues

Full time well engaged

Unknown

Care & Protection HistoryHas a Notification Been Made to CYF for this Family or Child / Young Person?

5%

5%

58%

17%

15%

Currently / previously in the custodyof CYF (101 status) Some form of intervention providedby CYFNotification concerning this child /young person Notification concerning anothersiblingNo

Alcohol / DrugsIs their alcohol or drug use causing concern?

17%

11%

20%

13%

33%

6%

Very Serious

Serious

Moderate

Slight

No concern

Unknown

Family ViolenceHighest Family Violence Score in NIA for this Family / Address?

33%

2%

49%

5%

11%

Score 17 or over

Score from 9 - 16

Score from 1 - 8

Records, but no score

Zero Records

Where Do They Live?Where Do They Live? (Decile Rating of Local State Primary School)

42%

36%

17%

5%0%

Transient / Motor Camp

1

2 - 3

4 - 7

8 - 10

Concerns in Living SituationAre There Any Concerns in the Living Situation?

14%

1%8%

29%22%

26%

Very major concerns

Major concerns

Minor concerns

Very minor concerns

None

Unknown

Family Members Offending HistoryDo Family Members Have Offending History?

32%

6%

17%

7%

28%

10%

Sibling(s) have offended within last 12 months

Parent(s) have offended within past 12 months

Parent/s with major history (imprisonment)

Parent(s) with minor history

None

Unknown

Benefits Allows everyone to speak the same language More consistent and transparent decisions Easier transitions if someone else taking over the file Guides a more targeted response – early intervention

with high risk children and young people Ability to monitor and measure change for the young

person. Provides valuable information across Districts about the

nature of our youth offending population – guide service development and policy.

Where to From Here?

National roll-out 2008 (August) as part of NIA upgrade

Research to ascertain validity and reliability of tool- How predictive is it?- Inter-rater reliability?