the growth of targeted youth crime prevention bob ashford head of youth justice strategy youth...
TRANSCRIPT
The Growth of Targeted Youth Crime Prevention
Bob AshfordHead of Youth Justice StrategyYouth Justice Board for England and Wales
Overview
● The Role of the Youth Justice Board
● The Research Case for prevention
● YJB Prevention Programmes
● Performance Framework
● Links to new Government Strategies - the Youth Crime Action Plan
Youth justice reforms
● Crime and Disorder Act 1998
● New local and national structures
● Reformed sentencing framework
● Reforms to secure facilities
● Cutting delays
● Focus on prevention and early intervention
● New culture
National structure
Youth Justice Board
● Independent non-departmental government body
● Advise on operation of the system and content of national standards
● monitor performance
● Identify effective practice
● Commission and purchase secure places – the purchaser-provider
divide
Local structure
Youth Offending Teams
● Multi-agency - police, probation, health, education and social
services
● Links to other statutory and community agencies
● Multi-agency steering group
● Local funding with additional YJB grants
● Responsible for provision of youth justice services and local youth
justice plans
Prevention: where have we come from?
Audit Commission report 1996
“ efforts to prevent offending and other anti-social behaviour by young
people need to be coordinated between the different agencies
involved; they should also be targeted on deprived areas with high
crime rates, and piloted and evaluated”
Where have we come from?
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Principal Aim
To prevent offending by children and young people
YJB Statutory Duty
To Promote Effective Practice
YJB Strategy
●Targeted services
●Early identification of risk factors
●Intervention at pre-delinquency stage
●Concentrate on high/medium-risk group
●Whole family approach
●Neighbourhood and Community engagement
Risk Factors● Family
Poor parental supervision and discipline
Conflict History of criminal activity Parental attitudes that condone
antisocial and criminal behaviour Low income Poor Housing
● Personal Hyperactivity and impulsivity Low intelligence and cognitive
impairment Alienation and lack of social
commitment Attitudes that condone offending and
drug misuse Friendship with peers involved in
crime and drug misuse
●School Aggressive behaviour (including
bullying) Lack of commitment (including
truancy) School disorganisation
●Community Living in a disorganised
neighbourhood Disorganisation and neglect Availability of drugs High population turnover and lack of
neighbourhood attachment
Protective Factors
● Individual Female gender Resilient temperament Sense of self efficacy Positive, outgoing disposition High intelligence
● Social Bonding Stable, warm, affectionate
relationship with one or both parents
Link with teachers and with other adults and peers who hold positive attitudes, and ‘model’ positive social behaviour
●Healthy Standards Prevailing attitudes across a
community Views of parents Promotion of healthy standards
within school Opportunities for involvement,
social and reasoning skills, recognition and due praise
From: Anderson B., Beinhart P., Farrington D., Longman J., Sturgis P. and Utting, D. (2001). Risk & Protective Factors associated with Youth crime and Effective Interventions to Prevent it. YJB Research Note. November.
The Menu: YIPNeighbourhood-Based Youth
Crime Prevention
TargetingGeographical
Core Group (50)
Identification
Multi-Agency Nomination
Community
Self, Parent/Carer
Age Range13 – 17th Birthday (Senior)
8 – 13th Birthday (Junior)
Activities
Advocacy
Mentoring
Sport, Outdoor, Issue-Based
Assessment ONSET
Duration Up to 1-2 years
73% of young offenders were arrested for fewer
offences after engaging with the YIP – MHB Evaluation
2003
The Menu: YISPPartnership Planning
TargetingGeographical (Can be
County-Wide)
IdentificationMulti-Agency Referral
Parent/Carer Self-Referral
Age Range 8 – 14 (In Some Cases 17)
Activities
Key Work
Individual Support Plan
Panel
Assessment ONSET
Duration 3 – 6 Months
The Menu: ParentingPrevention Additions
Targeting Assessment-Based
IdentificationMulti-Agency Referral
Prevention Programmes
Age Range 8 – 18th Birthday
Activities
Individual Programmes
Group Work
Whole Family Interventions
Assessment Asset, Onset, Bespoke
Duration Needs-Led
Modality
Voluntary Parenting
Contracts
Parenting Orders
Between 2004 and 2006, the number of parenting
interventions through YOTs doubled to 11,000. Audits showed improvements in
quality and 95% of parents were satisfied with the
interventions.
Programme Methodology
Multi-Agency Identification
Engagement Assessment
Programme Delivery
ReviewExit Strategy
PlanningUniversal Provision
Youth Crime Prevention – Major Government Investment Streams Since 1999-2000
●YJB prevention programmes - £100m
since 1999-2000
Multiple funding streams to
YOTs and Third Sector
●Children’s Fund: £150m since 2003
●(PAYP: £160m since 2003)
Total = £410m
By comparison:
●YJB custody spend since 99-00 =
£1.7bn
Targeted Prevention
Secure Estate
Youth Crime Prevention – 2005 On: Major New Unified Funding Stream
Category 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Total
Parenting SR04 £0 £2,000,000 2,000,000 £4,000,000
YIP and YISP SR04* £3,000,000 £5,000,000 8,000,000 £16,000,000
Budget 05 £0 £10,000,000 £15,000,000 £25,000,000
Total £3,000,000 £17,000,000 £25,000,000 £45,000,000
Programme Expansion to:YIP: 114 projectsYISP: 220 panelsParenting: 84 programmesSSP*: 3 partnershipsISO: 6 schemesInnovative: 39 initiatives*Overall there are over 450 SSPs in England.
2006-07 partnership funding estimated at over £27m.
Programmes expected to engage at least 50,000 young people between 2006 and 2008
Failure to prevent future crime is costly to the taxpayer given the expense of correctional services
Number of crimes
prevented per £1000
spent
Over 4 yrs Over 9 yrs
Prevention
Youth interventions 11 19.4
Parenting programmes 6.7 11
Situational 1.7 2.2
Reducing Reoffending
Drug treatment 1.1 1.3
Community 1.4 2.3
Custody 1 1.9
Policing
Hot spot policing 1.7 1.9
High visibility patrol 0.4 0.4
Crime Reduction Review, Home Office 2004; Scott, S. (2001) Cost of social exclusion: Antisocial children grow up
Preventative measures have been shown to be much more cost effective than later interventions but public funds are devoted primarily to the detection and punishment of crime
Costs by age 27 to public services
of not intervening
£7,423
£70,019
No behaviourproblems
Conduct Disorder atage 10
• The value to diverting an individual from offending is on average £172,000 (NPV)
• Crime and ASB also cost public services proportionally a great deal. A recent study found they accounted for 64% of the £70,000 cost of public services used by a cohort of socially excluded children with conduct disorder over 18 years
Audit Commission 2004
“ targeted and well-managed early intervention programmes can
be effective if they are properly co-ordinated both nationally
and locally, such as those managed by Yots”
“ better still, mainstream agencies, such as schools and health
services, should take full responsibility for preventing
offending by young people”
The Youth Crime Action Plan
● Youth disorder continues to be of growing concern to the public, fuelled in part by high profile
● Gang and gun crime.
● MORI– around 25% of young people have been victims of crime.
● Need to join up services to young people
● The Youth Crime Action Plan is being developed trilaterally by the Home Office, DCSF and MoJ, with other partners including ACPO and the YJB.
● It will culminate in two publications next year – the Action Plan to set the strategic direction and outline the policy reform necessary to achieve our aims, and a Practitioners’ Toolkit to help drive change on the ground
Preventing first time entrants to the Criminal Justice
System
Dealing more effectively with
offending
Victimisation
Serious Violence
We are developing policy across two main themes, with two cross-cutting issues
Prevention Overview
● Strong Research Base
● Strong Delivery Base
● Links to wider governmental agendas