Sustaining delivery in targeted youth crime prevention

Youth offending teams and their delivery partners may want to ensure funding for targeted youth crime prevention services in their local areas can continue to operate under these new funding arrangements, by making the case for continued investment in this crucial area.

This information pack is intended to help YOTs and their partners develop a business case to take to PCCs, once elected, to try and secure funding for targeted prevention and early intervention by highlighting its research and evidence base, sound financial and value for money case, and the contribution they have made to the positive results we are seeing across the youth justice system.

Please contact the Youth Justice Board for any further information that may be of assistance

Police Crime Commissioners : why invest in targeted prevention and early intervention through local Youth Offending Teams

The YJ system is a success story

Since the peak in 2006/07 national figures show:

• Youth crime (proven offences) is down by 40%; • Numbers of under 18s first time entrants coming into the youth

justice system down by 59%; and

• The average under 18 custody population has fallen by 30%.

Local Success

Local figures for this police force area show –

• Youth crime (proven offences) is down by ?%;

• Numbers of under 18s first time entrants coming into the youth justice system down by ?%; and

• The average under 18 custody population has fallen by ?%.

Local Youth Offending Teams (YOTS)

• The information detailing the success story is attributed to YOT’s being at the forefront of delivery, complimented by solid partnership working arrangements; resulting in the successes at a local level.

• YOT's are one of many statutory organisations (including the police) with a legal responsibility to prevent offending and reduce re-offending.

• Overseen by a management board, usually chaired by a senior official within the local authority. It is the duty of every local authority, acting with partner agencies, to set up one or more YOT teams for their area, or for two or more local authorities acting together to establish one or more YOTs. S39(5) of the C&D Act 1998 sets out the required minimum membership of each team.

• The YJB has worked with YOTs to develop a wide range of evidence-based youth-crime prevention programmes, alongside national and local partners such as the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), local authorities, charities and the voluntary sector.

• Youth Justice services were at the forefront of addressing the youth crime committed during last years disturbances.

Local Youth Offending Teams (YOTS).. cont….

• Police and Crime Commissioners have a duty to co-operate with other organisations “so as to provide an efficient and effective criminal justice system for the police area” (Section 10 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011). Youth offending teams are included in this duty to co-operate.

• YOT funding currently comes from a range of sources

•About 30 to 40% of YOT grant comes from the YJB with the remainder being received from local agencies, including the local authority and the police.

•PCC investment may attract further funding from other sources

• Each YOT management board identifies local priorities and the level of funding for each. They are also able to commission services to reduce and prevent youth crime and antisocial behaviour.

• Funding from Police Crime Commissioners will be vital to maintain service delivery and ensure the successful outcomes of YOTs continues.

YOTs in this Police area

YOTs may want to include a brief description here – this could include (not exhaustive) : -

• YOT set up in this area

• Differing demographics

• A story of the journey on service developments/challenges/successes and maintenance alongside police colleagues on the ground and strategically

Targeted prevention programmes: their history and evidence base

• Youth Crime Prevention work has been supported in the past by Home Office funding (routed through the YJB) and has seen the development of a number of evidence based programmes.

• These include • Youth Inclusion Support Panels, • Youth Inclusion Programmes &

• Family Intervention Programmes

Targeted prevention programmes: their history and evidence base… Cont…..

Youth Inclusion Support Panels - YISPsMulti agency planning groups that offer early intervention based on assessed risk and need. Parenting support in the form of contracts and programmes is offered as part of a range of tailored interventions. YISPs aim to prevent anti social behaviour and offending by those at high risk. Youth Inclusion Programmes; YIPsYIPs operate in the most deprived/high crime neighbourhoods with the aim to reducing crime and anti social behaviour. Identification of at risk young people is through different agencies including police, local authorities, schools etc

Many targeted prevention programmes are delivered by the Voluntary, Community & Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector. Approximately 50% of YIPs in England and Wales are delivered by the VCSE sector.

Many of these are small, community-based organisations who have built up prevention networks in their regions over time.

There are many positive examples of prevention programme ‘success stories’ – as the following case studies illustrate:

Family Intervention Programmes - FIPsYOTs have also contributed to the growth of family intervention programmes (FIPs) in England.

Troubled FamiliesTo add to the success and continued work delivered by the above, a new Governemnt initiative has been rolled out deal with “Troubled families”. There are estimated to be 120,000 most troubled families in England and recent data estimated that £9 billion is spent on them equating to £78, 000 per family.These familes can have serious problems leading to crime and disorder which usually includes; unemployed parents and children not in school. Governemnt investment in this new initiative should deliver longer term reductions in all elements affecting these families. http://www.communities.gov.uk/communities/troubledfamilies

Context and current provision




The factors associated with the onset of offending are well established and evidence-based

They can be grouped under four ‘domains’

FA

MIL

YS

CH

OO

LC

OM

MU

NIT

YP

ER

SO

NA

L

•Poor parental supervision and discipline•Conflict•History of criminal activity•Parental attitudes that condone anti-social and criminal behaviour•Low income•Poor housing

•Low achievement beginning in primary school•Aggressive behaviour (including bullying)•Lack of commitment (including truancy)•School disorganisation

•Living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood• Disorganisation and neglect• Availability of drugs• High population turnover, and lack of neighbourhood attachment

• Hyperactivity and impulsivity• Low intelligence and cognitive impairment• Alienation and lack of social commitment• Attitudes that condone offending and drug misuse• Early involvement in crime and drug misuse• Friendships with peers involved in crime and drug • Substance misuse

Where these factors ‘cluster’ in a young person’s life their likelihood of offending increases

For further information see Risk and Protective Factors (YJB, 2005)

http://www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=246&eP

The impact of family and/or parenting factors on a young person’s likelihood of offending is also well established

Factors which can impact upon offending risk include;

• Having a criminal or anti-social parent/s

• Overcrowding and/or large family size

• Consistency and warmth of parenting and parenting skills

• Abuse or neglect, family conflict and disruption, financial hardship, substance misuse

‘It is clear that many family factors predict offending, but less clear what are the causes

or key underlying family dimensions that should be measured or targeted in prevention

programmes’” Farrington and Welsh, Saving Children from a Life of Crime, 2007

For further information, see

Impact of Family Breakdown on Children’s Well-being: http://publications.education.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/DCSF-RR113.pdf

Families At Risk Review:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080107205404/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force/families_at_risk.aspx





http://publications.education.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/DCSF-RR113.pdf

Evidence-based, targeted prevention programmes delivered to young people at risk of offending have been proven to be effective

Benefits include;• Reducing the number of young people entering the criminal justice system and embarking on a life of crime into adulthood.• Reducing early reoffending (YIPs typically include in their core group around 1/3 of young people who have already entered the CJS)• Reducing anti-social behaviour using a tiered approach• Improving the quality of life in deprived communities and reducing victimisation

These positive outcomes are supported by a growing body of research that have reported positive findings for YJB-funded prevention programmesYouth Inclusion Programme: The independent YIP evaluation found YP engaged by the programme had lower arrest rates than those not engaged. Phase 2 of the evaluation found an 82% engagement level among the ‘core 50’ young people, whose arrest rates fell by 66%

See http://www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=473&eP=

Safer School Partnership: The 2005 University of York SSP evaluation found absence rates in the 15 ‘intervention’ schools fell significantly relative to the comparison schools, and reported evidence that victimisation outcomes improved in the intervention schools. A further University of York study compared 300 SSP schools with 1,000 ‘like’ schools and found the SSP schools were displaying greater-than-average rises in attainment and significantly reduced truancy rates.

See http://www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=269&eP=

The 2004 Audit Commission review of the youth justice system reported YJB-developed targeted programmes “have proved to be an effective way to target limited resources to those most at risk.” (Audit Commission, Youth Justice 2004)

The Home Affairs Select Committee have recommended Government “continues to fund Youth Inclusion Programmes as a means of reducing youth crime.” (Home Affairs Select Committee Seventh Report of 2008/09 )

There is continuing growth in the research and evidence base for investing in targeted youth crime prevention which proved it works.

In an independent report it clearly supported the approach of targeting services at high and medium risk offenders rather than having universal access.

The Policy Exchange think tank has identified 10 programmes that are proven, after rigorous evaluation, to have significant impact on future offending as well as being cost-effective.

The Youth Inclusion Programme is identified as one of these programmes.

0-3 years 8-13 years 13-18 years

Family Nurse Partnership

Perry Pre-school

Mentoring

3-6 years

Olweus Bullying Prevention

Triple P

Intensive Fostering

Life Skills training

Functional Family Therapy

Youth Inclusion Programme

Multi-systemic therapy

Ten effective crime prevention programmes

* Reproduced from Less Crime, Lower Costs, Policy Exchange, 2009

Functional Family Therapy (FFT), Intensive Fostering, Mentoring, Nurse Family Partnerships, and Multi-systemic Therapy (MST) have also been, or are currently, available in parts of England and Wales

Common features identified in these effective programmes are that they;

• Focus on the risk factors that increase the likelihood of offending behaviour

• Work in community rather than custodial settings as much as possible

• Focus on the offender’s specific behavioural and skills needs, taking into account gender, age, ethnicity and cultural identity

• Involve many agencies in order to offer the offender a range of opportunities for personal, social, economic and anti-social behaviour

• Target high and medium-risk offenders than being universal

• Demonstrate ‘programme integrity’ i.e. establish aims, methods, resources, staff training, support, monitoring and evaluation that are integrated and consistent

Targeted programmes which deliver services to at-risk young people are widespread and firmly embedded in the youth justice landscape in England and Wales. Their impact and effectiveness has been recognised by a number of leading organisations.

* Less Crime, Lower Costs, Policy Exchange, 2009

The sound financial case for investing in targeted prevention programmes can also be made

Many US ‘model’ programmes have been rigorously evaluated and shown to have significant impact on offending, as well as being cost-effective. These include;

• Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme

• Functional Family Therapy

• The Incredible Years

• Big Brothers Big Sisters of America

• Nurse Family Partnerships

• Life Skills Training

• Midwestern Prevention Project

For further information about these programmes

see University of Colorado ‘blueprints’ at

http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/

There is evidence that taking a ‘whole family’ approach, rather than working with individuals in isolation, can be more effective for some young people and their families including cost avoidance savings of £2.50 per £1 spent on intervention (DfE RR046 2010)

The sound financial case for investing in targeted prevention programmes has also been made by a number of independent bodies who have identified potential savings;

• A 2004 Audit Commission report found that £100 million could be saved if just one in ten young people sentenced to custody were dealt with through prevention and early intervention measures (Audit Commission, 2004)

• The Home Affairs Select Committee have argued that a young person who shows behavioural problems by age 5 and is dealt with through the criminal justice system costs over £200,000 by age 16, while one given support to stay out costs just £50,000 (Home Affairs Select Committee, 2009/10)

The current prevention landscape is therefore based on good evidence about ‘what works’….and we know

similar US programmes have yielded extremely positive results

•YIP evaluation: http://www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=473&eP=

•Key Elements of Effective Practice guidance series: http://www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Scripts/prodList.asp?idCategory=32&eP=

•Children’s Workforce Development Council Commissioning toolkit: http://www.cwdcouncil.org.uk/working-with-parents-and-families/commissioning-toolkit

Further information to support the case for targeted programmes can be found at:



The health and well-being needs of children and young people tend to be particularly severe by the time they are at risk of receiving a community sentence and even more so when they receive a custodial sentence

We know from the latest available evidence[1] about children and young people in the YJS that:

Over 75%• have a history of temporary or permanent school exclusion (custody) • have serious difficulties with literacy and numeracy (custody)

Over 50%• have difficulties with speech, language and communication (custody) • have problems with peer and family relationships (community and custody) • of young people who commit an offence have been a victim of crime – twice the rate for non-offenders

Over 33% • have a diagnosed mental health disorder (custody) • of those accessing substance misuse services are from the YJS (community and custody) • have been looked after (custody)• have experienced homelessness (custody)

Over 25%• of young men in custody (and a third of young women) report a long-standing physical complaint • have a learning disability (community and custody)

A high proportion • of children from black and minority ethnic (BME) groups, compared with others, have post-traumatic stress disorder

(community and custody)• have experienced bereavement and loss through death and family breakdown (community and custody)

Parental Offending• approximately 200,000 children had a parent in prison at some point in 2009[2]

[1] Healthy Children, Safer Communities, HM Government, 2009[2] Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction study, Ministry of Justice, March 2012

Why should PCCs consider health in prevention investment?

• Those most vulnerable to entering the YJS are also more vulnerable to having unmet health needs, substance misuse etc.

• YOTs are skilled in assessing and identifying those at risk of poor outcomes.

• Investment contributes to the complex families agenda.

• Targeted prevention work not only prevents escalation of health related risk and harm but also leads to reductions in anti-social behaviour, offending and reoffending‘

• It would be prudent to ensure services being commissioned by PCCs and health (ie. Via Clinical Commissioning Groups) are suitably aligned to avoid duplication and ensure continuity of care before, during and after an individual comes into contact with the YJS

• A key link is the Director of Children’s Services who has representation on both the local Community Safety Partnership (CSP) and the Health and Wellbeing Board (HWB)

The total costs of responding to youth crime are estimated at between £4billion and £11billion annually. There is therefore a potentially huge cost-benefit to effective youth crime prevention.

Over £2 billion is invested in early intervention. However, much less – around £160 million – is estimated to be spent annually on programmes whose main remit is to reduce youth crime.

Compared to the very high costs of correctional services, a strong case exists to invest much more.

*estimated figures based on the number of young people expected to be reached by the programmes each year

Recent studies have calculated the total costs of responding to youth crime at between £4billion* and £11billion** annually

Home Office research places the (largely administrative) costs of crime at •£500 for every episode of criminal damage•£5,000 for car theft

* Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Anti-social Behaviour, 2010** National Audit Office, 2010

For further information see Home Office research The Economic and Social Costs of Crime http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors217.pdf

See The public costs of youth crime, Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Anti-social behaviour, 2010

www.youthcrimecommission.org.uk

Annual cost equivalents per person per year, £

1,333 1,920

17,000

59,000

185,000

219,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Youth Inclusionand Support

Panel*

Youth InclusionProgramme*

IntensiveSupervision

andSurveillanceProgramme

Youngoffenderinstitution

SecureTrainingCentre

SecureChildren's

Home

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors217.pdf

http://www.youthcrimecommission.org.uk/

It has been estimated that approximately 78,000 young people are reached each year by the main interventions* targeted at young people at risk of offending …with a further 15,000 estimated to be referred on to support services through street-based initiatives

*Youth Inclusion Programmes, Youth Inclusion and Support Panels, YOT parenting interventions, YCAP Family Intervention Projects, Intensive Intervention Projects, Challenge and Support

** The per capita cost of the core group was £2,584 and the per capita cost of the wider group was £1,202. While these per capita cost analyses do not give an indication of cost benefit or cost effectiveness, they do give an estimate of how the money was spread over the number of young people who were engaged by the programme

•Prevention programmes range in cost, with the most intensive interventions inevitably requiring substantial investment.

•However there is a large body of, largely, US-based evidence which suggests they can result in significant cost-benefits.

•There is less evidence to support the cost-benefits of UK-based preventions programmes. However we know that the per capita cost of engaging young people at high risk of offending on a YIP has been identified as £2,584 over the 3 year Phase 2 evaluation period.**

In addition, a 2009 Policy Exchange report supported the cost-benefit case for investing in prevention.

The report concluded that

“investing in evidence-based programmes {like these} is the key to reducing the number of victims and improving public safety while simultaneously managing the spiralling cost of our growing prison population”

and that,

“the merit and value of early prevention is sometimes overlooked because the full rewards are not realised for many years.”

For further information see Policy Exchange, Less Crime, Lower Costs, 2009

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/publication.cgi?id=116

The cost-effectiveness of UK-based prevention programmes is less well known and difficult to establish – but collectively the available evidence makes a compelling case for investment



The YJB, in partnership with Birmingham City Council and the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, have sponsored the work of the Social Research Unit at Dartington in identifying the youth justice interventions that are effective in reducing crime whilst also producing a return on investment.

For further information see the Social Research Unit: Investing in Children –Youth Justice v1.1

http://www.dartington.org.uk/sites/default/files/Youth_Justice%20report.pdf

The latest estimates of savings for each £ spent on youth justice interventions sees prevention programmes feature prominently amongst the interventions with the highest, most reliable returns

In the first batch of programmes to be analysed for impact and cost effectiveness, the top three interventions (when all things are taken into account) are all prevention programmes: Functional Family Therapy, Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, and Multisystemic Therapy.

Targeted youth crime prevention is contributing towards the positive results we are seeing across the youth justice system

Number of young people aged 10-17 receiving their first reprimand, warning or conviction (including and excluding PNDs) living in England, 2000-01 to 2009-10

• The number of young people entering the criminal justice system for the first time (first time entrants, FTEs) has shown significant and sustained reductions in recent years.

• In 2009/10 the number of young people receiving their first reprimand, warning or conviction in England and Wales fell by 23% from 2008/09, from 79,851 to 61,422.

• This sustained fall in FTEs is likely to be due to a combination of factors, including the expansion of, and investment in, successful targeted prevention programmes.

YJB-funded targeted prevention programmes are contributing to national reductions in FTEs.

Recent analysis of data provided to the YJB in 2009/10 shows that 11% of a cohort of young people engaged by prevention programmes subsequently became FTE in the 12 months following their engagement, a 13% reduction from the 2007 baseline

Sustained efforts to prevent young people from entering the criminal justice system are also contributing to other positive outcomes

There have been positive reductions in the number of young people in custody in recent years.

The average number of young people (under 18) in custody has shown very encouraging results, falling by around 19% from the peak of 3,029 in 2002/03 to 2,444 in 2009/10

Chart 3. Average Secure Estate for Children and Young People Population, 2000/01 - 2010/11*

2,000

2,200

2,400

2,600

2,800

3,000

3,200

3,400

3,600

2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10* 2010/11**

Average Secure Estate Custody Population (under 18's) Average Secure Estate Custody Population (inc 18 year olds)

* Provisional data** This shows the average for provisional data for the period April 2010

to August 2010.

Youth reoffending has also fallen – latest available data (2008) shows that since 2000 the proportion of offenders who reoffended within 12 months (actual rate) has fallen from 40.2% to 37.3%.

The frequency of reoffending (number of offences per 100 offenders) has also fallen from 151.4 to 113.9, a fall of 24.8%

Frequency of reoffending (per 100 offenders)

The number of offences per 100 offenders that were classified as most serious (severe) has fallen 7.4 per cent from 0.91 to 0.84 offences since 2000

Contents

Documents

Transcript of Contents