YOUTH INTERVENTION PARTNERSHIP MODEL€¦ · This version of the Youth Intervention Partnership...

YOUTH INTERVENTION PARTNERSHIP MODEL November 2017

YPP’S YOUTH INTERVENTION PARTNERSHIP MODEL

2

The Youth Partnership Project (YPP) acknowledges the Wadjuk Noongar people, the traditional custodians of the country on which this project was initiated and trialled. We give our highest respect to the elders and leaders of this land and community, both past and present. In the spirit of reconciliation, we commit to walking alongside and working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, families and young people, to create a strong future; a future which celebrates culture and rich contribution to our shared community. We would like to acknowledge and thank every Aboriginal leader and young person who has given of their time and wisdom, to enable the success of this project.

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2014, the Youth Partnership Project (YPP) was initiated in the South East Corridor of Perth in direct response to significant issues of youth crime and anti-social behaviour; with one in four young people entering Banksia Hill Youth Detention Centre coming from the South East Corridor (Department of Corrective Services, 2016 b). Guided by an Executive Committee and supported by Save the Children as the backbone organisation, the project adopted a collective impact approach, with the aim to develop a better early intervention model for young people with complex needs which is effective, aligned, sustainable and scalable.

The Armadale Youth Intervention Partnership (AYIP) started in 2013 as an organic collaboration of a few place-based diversionary programs, who thought by working together they could create a more positive impact. However, the services lacked the resources to develop a sophisticated, well evidenced and structured collaborative model. To achieve its objective, in 2016, the YPP focussed on formalising and developing AYIP as a ‘Proof Point Project’, with the intent to adapt this model to other local government areas, as the Youth Intervention Partnership (YIP) model.

Drawing on a set of underlying principles, the Youth Intervention Partnership model has been developed as an early intervention model which acts as the interface between the youth justice system and the community to prevent the need for tertiary engagement.

With oversight and strategic direction from the YPP Executive Committee, the YIP model has evolved over time, with strategies and initiatives emerging along the course of the project. This document outlines the rigorous and comprehensive processes taken to develop the model, including youth participation through co-design, mapping strategic alignment across government departments, practice insight from the youth and community services sector and desktop research.

The YIP is not ‘another program’; it rethinks the service system and changes the way it operates. The model enables a cross-sector of partners to move beyond programs with isolated impact, to a collaborative approach with a common goal. It is premised on the theory that if we get the right support, to the right young people, at the right time, we will not only create significant savings in expenditure on tertiary services but, more importantly, young people will thrive in their communities.


4

The Youth Intervention Partnership model works through five stages:

1. IDENTIFICATION Supporting government departments to collaboratively identify young people with complex needs using a shared definition, based on cross-departmental indicators.

2. GAINING CONSENT Gaining consent from the family and young person for cross-sector information sharing.

3. BULDING RELATIONSHIPS AND TRUST Enabling services to build relationships with young people with the most complex needs, through an intensive engagement program using pooled resources.

4. ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS A collaborative needs assessment based on cross-departmental indicators, including assessment of psychoeducational needs.

5. COORDINATED AND HOLISTIC SUPPORT Provide support across six criminogenic needs (social and emotional well-being, life skills, family support, adequate access to resources, education engagement and safe community spaces), using a coordinated cross-sector partnership approach.

Juvenile justice is a complex problem, which defies technical solutions. This model acknowledges that a solution to this multifaceted intergenerational problem cannot be achieved by one organisation, service or person. To change this story, it requires the united will, intelligence and expertise of many, acting together.

This version of the Youth Intervention Partnership model is the first phase of documenting the process, learnings and model. Whilst the partnership has been developing over some years, this financial year will be the first with dedicated resourcing to implement the model. As we move to resourced implementation, we will continue to develop, refine, and importantly, build evidence. The YPP team and Executive Committee continues to provide oversight and leadership in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the model, to ensure it is effective and efficient and can be adapted and scaled to other local government areas.

Together we can change the story of Western Australia’s most vulnerable young people.

5

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 6

WHY ................................................................................................................................................................. 7

DESIGN PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................................................ 9

YIP JOURNEY .................................................................................................................................................. 11

HOW IT WORKS ............................................................................................................................................. 26

1) IDENTIFICATION: Targeted Support to the Right Young People ...................................................... 27

2) GAINING CONSENT ........................................................................................................................... 29

3) BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS AND TRUST: Intensive Engagement ..................................................... 30

4) ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS .................................................................................................................. 34

5) COORDINATED AND HOLISTIC SUPPORT ........................................................................................ 36

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 41

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 42

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................. 45

APPENDIX 1: HOW TO READ THE DATA STORY .................................................................................... 45

APPENDIX 2: AYIP CONSENT FORMS ................................................................................................... 46

APPENDIX 3: OBSERVATIONAL ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE ................................................................... 48

APPENDIX 4: AYIP SERVICE DELIVERY PARTNERS ............................................................................... 49

APPENDIX 5: PARTICIPANT COLLABORATIVE ACTION PLAN ............................................................... 50

APPENDIX 6: PARTICIPANT SERVICES MAP ........................................................................................... 51

APPENDIX 7: PARTICIPANT PROGRESS SNAPSHOT ............................................................................. 52


6

INTRODUCTION

In 2014, the Youth Partnership Project (YPP) was initiated in the South East Corridor of Perth, with funding from the Department of Communities (formerly Department of Local Government and Communities), in direct response to significant youth issues, including youth crime and anti-social behaviour. Guided by an Executive Steering Committee and supported by Save the Children as the Backbone Organisation, the project adopted a collective impact approach, with the aim to develop a better early intervention model for young people with complex needs which is effective, aligned, sustainable and scalable.

The Department of Premier and Cabinet’s Aboriginal Youth Services Expenditure Review (2013) demonstrates that how economic resources are invested is just as important as what is invested. This project has aimed to not merely ‘pour more money into the problem’, but rather facilitate the collaboration of services and coordination of resources that already exist, and identify and fill gaps.

The Youth Intervention Partnership (YIP) model presented in this document is not ‘another program’; it rethinks the service system and changes the way it operates. The YIP model enables a cross-sector of partners to move beyond programs with isolated impact, to a collaborative approach with a common goal.

It is premised on the theory that if we get the right support, to the right young people, at the right time, we will not only create significant savings in expenditure on tertiary services but, more importantly, young people will thrive in their communities.

To achieve this objective, in 2016, the YPP focussed on formalising and developing the Armadale Youth Intervention Partnership (AYIP) as a ‘Proof Point Project’ for the Youth Intervention Partnership (YIP) model; demonstrating how a targeted, collaborative and place-based approach, with purposely resourced backbone leadership, can support better outcomes for young people with complex needs. This is an early intervention model which acts as the interface between the youth justice system and the community to prevent the need for tertiary engagement.

AYIP had humble beginnings, starting in 2013 as an organic collaboration of a few place-based diversionary programs, who thought by working together they could create a more positive impact. However, the services lacked the resources to develop a sophisticated, well evidenced and structured collaborative model. Since being adopted by the YPP in 2016 as a pilot site for the YIP, the project has gained significant momentum and developed into a sophisticated partnership model.

This document outlines the Youth Intervention Partnership model which we are currently trialling in Armadale, while also outlining the processes we have taken in getting to this stage, and what we have learned so far.

http://youthpartnershipproject.org.au/committee

http://youthpartnershipproject.org.au/ypp-team

7

WHY The Need for Change

Figure 1: Data Story for the South East Corridor of Perth. For “How to Read”, please see appendix 1.


8

Young people in the youth justice system are some of the most vulnerable young people in our community, particularly where this leads to detainment. In 2016, on an average night 761 young people were detained in juvenile detention centres across Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2016). Despite being home to only 11 per cent of the Australian youth population, 17 per cent (133) of detained young Australians were from Western Australia (Department of Corrective Services, 2016 a. p19).

The South East Corridor of Perth is well known for its relative socio-economic disadvantage and higher rates of crime. Between October 2015 and September 2016 there were 1,684 receptions in to Banksia Hill Detention centre (i.e. young people walked through the gates 1,684 times) (Department of Corrective Services, 2016. b, p. 7). One in four of these young people were from the South East Corridor of Perth, and 58 per cent of these young people were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (Department of Corrective Services, 2016. b).

Youth Corrective Services comes at a high cost to WA. From July 2015 to June 2016, just over $48 million was spent detaining young people. Despite this high spend, the Department of Corrective Services reported one in two young people return to Banksia within two years (Department of Corrective Services, 2016 a). Likewise, $24 million was spent supporting young people on community service orders, however only 55 per cent of these orders were successfully completed (Department of Corrective Services, 2016, a pp.121-122).

Clearly what we are doing is not creating the long-term outcomes for young people that we are seeking, a responsibility which does not lie solely with the Department of Justice, but with the many agencies and services responsible for protecting and supporting young people.

These figures do not tell the full story of the complex and multifaceted needs and challenges that the communities, and in particular the young people face. The Youth Intervention Partnership model was developed to provide a framework for taking a collective impact approach to tackle these place-based and complex challenges in young people’s lives, before they end up part of the youth justice system. This document seeks to provide a model for how we can work better together, ultimately enabling a solution to change this story.

9

DESIGN PRINCIPLES

This Youth Intervention Partnership model is based on a strong set of principles which inform our approach to working with young people, families and the wider community. Below, we highlight these principles, why they are important to the work we do, and how they are put into practice throughout this model.

Trauma Informed: Trauma-informed services are those in which service delivery is influenced by an understanding of the impact of a traumatic event or events on a person’s life and development, including behaviour. This includes both young people and their carers. This model seeks to restore safety, connection and dignity for both young people and their families.

Strengths Based: Strengths based service delivery focusses on the resources and assets of a young person and builds upon these. It views the individual, families and communities through the lens of their capacities, talents, competencies, possibilities, visions, values and hopes, recognising that these may have become distorted through circumstance and trauma. This model seeks to be client-led, inclusive and empowering.

Culturally Responsive: Cultural competency is about building relationships founded on mutual respect and trust, and recognising the principle of substantive equality: that in order to treat people equally, we may need to treat them differently. This model seeks to be flexible in meeting community need and works with partners to develop our collective workforce to have the knowledge, attitude and skills to work effectively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and people from other Culturally and Linguistically Diverse backgrounds.

Youth Centred: This model has sought to be youth centred, by involving young people in the design, and guided by the principle of the ‘best interest of the child’ when making decisions that affect young people’s lives.


10

Family and Community Inclusion: We recognise that young people are a part of families and communities that greatly impact and enrich their lives. This model seeks to include young people’s families and kinship networks in supporting and celebrating their child.

Relationship Based: We recognise that it is people who change people’s lives, not simply programs. The design and delivery of this model values and prioritises relationships. Where possible the model seeks to provide tailored and individualised support.

While these principles have a strong influence on the Youth Intervention Partnership model, you will find that beyond this chapter they are rarely addressed explicitly. We recognise that these principles are examples of best practice, but also steeped in the theory and jargon of the youth and community services sectors. In this model and our day-to-day work, we avoid explicit use of technical language, instead opting for plain language explanations of what we do and why we do it, which reflects the language used by young people and the communities we work with. In taking this approach, we seek to remain connected and relevant to the communities we work with, and to continually challenge ourselves to strive towards the true intent on these principles, beyond the tokenism of jargon.

11

YIP JOURNEY Development of the Model and Partnership

The YIP model has developed and evolved over many years, with significant acceleration in 2016-2017 when the project was adopted by the Youth Partnership Project.

The YPP has used collective impact (Kania & Kramer, 2011), as a framework for creating social change. As highlighted by Kerry Graham (2016) “collective impact is all about getting comfortable with emergence - with developing strategy through learning”. As highlighted in the YPP KPMG report (p.14), the theory of ‘emergent’ strategy can be used to describe how the YPP (including AYIP) have evolved since inception. According to this theory, intended strategy activities (what starts off happening) evolve over time to deliberate strategies (those that are pursued more deliberately), while unrealised strategies fall away. At the same time emergent strategies can appear and be incorporated into the final set of activities, termed ‘realised strategies’. Whilst the YIP timeline may appear linear, it is important to note that strategies have emerged along the course of the project and that as we’ve applied one strategy we have often learned new information which informed subsequent activities and new ways of working. In other words, we have formed ‘emergent strategies’. This section provides detail on how the YIP model has evolved and processes undertaken to achieve this.

Figure 2: Timeline of YIP Model Development


12

2013 – DISCOVERING NEED FOR CHANGE In 2013, three services working in the Armadale area identified that they were delivering similar services for ‘at-risk’ young people, namely City of Armadale Drug Aware Ignite Basketball, Save the Children One Step Closer and Hope Community Services The Bunker (later YMCA Y-time). All three programs were a response to the Northbridge curfew, and aimed to provide safe spaces in the community at a ‘peak time of street presence and youth offending’; preventing children and young people from engaging in street presence and anti-social, risk taking, and offending behaviour. There was recognition from these services that there was a lack of cohesive strategy, limited resourcing and duplication of resources. Whilst these programs were delivering beneficial services, the lack of a coordinated and strategic approach meant there was limited impact on the high level of juvenile offending in the community.

2014 – COLLABORATION OF DIVERSIONARY PROGRAMS It was agreed that there was opportunity to work better together to create a more positive impact on street presence and youth offending. These three organisations and local police started meeting together regularly, including sharing basic information on attendance at their programs, any incidents and what strategies were working well to engage the young people. This provided a more cohesive approach to youth diversion programs but was heavily reliant on the goodwill of organisations and individual staff. It also lacked sophistication in taking a holistic approach to overcoming the underlying causes of youth offending and addressing the complex needs of these young people.

2015 – JOINT PITCH TO DIRECTOR GENERALS In 2015, these programs were at risk of closure due to limited funding opportunities. Many of the programs were operating on a cocktail of funding from various sources which was proving unsustainable. The three organisations developed a joint funding pitch as the ‘Armadale Youth Intervention Partnership’ (AYIP) to ten government agencies seeking a $50,000 per year over three year’s investment, to enable the three programs to integrate effectively and operate as a pilot of a collaborative approach to youth crime diversion. This was to enable the programs to continue to operate as well as fund a coordinator position which would allow for:

• Joint training and regular briefings for all staff and other personnel to ensure a consistent approach towards participants.

• Ongoing analysis of participants’ needs and issues using a case management approach.

• A coordinated approach to referrals.

• The opportunity to evaluate effectiveness at a heightened level.

• Efficiency in program delivery through increased economies of scale e.g. transport, food, human resources etc.

This proposal for co-investment across the government was supported in principle by the departments, but funding was not committed to the model.

13

JAN 2016 - SCHOOL HOLIDAY PROGRAM In response to police concern of high youth offending during the January school holiday period, the AYIP agencies partnered together to provide a targeted engagement program for five young people identified as ‘Prolific Priority Offenders’ referred by WA Police Youth Crime Intervention Officers (YCIO’s). The program was designed to ‘engage young people at a peak time of street presence and youth offending’. The YPP provided funding for activity costs and staffing was given in-kind by the City of Armadale, YMCA and Save the Children. Youth workers from the agencies were chosen for their existing relationships with the participants. Based on basic data analysis, the program proved successful, resulting in a 50 per cent reduction in youth offending by the young people, comparative to the same time the year before. Just as importantly, for some young people this helped establish a strong trusting relationship, which enabled effective follow through support. Due to resourcing at the time, this follow through support was limited to two young people.

Whilst this program started in direct response to the need identified by WA Police data, it forms a core component of the model, recognising that the intensive time to build relationships and trust was critical to ongoing success. It was recognised that whilst engagement programs such as Ignite Basketball or Y-time are effective in engaging young people, the limited nature of the program being once a week for 3-4 hours over 48 weeks a year, equates to the same amount of time in an intensive engagement program for three weeks. Furthermore, these programs often have a low youth worker to young person ratio of 1:5. Whilst these programs are valuable, they do not provide sufficient time needed to engage highly vulnerable young people with complex needs.

JUL 2016 - YPP CHOOSES AYIP AS PROOF POINT PROJECT In 2016, the Armadale Youth Intervention Partnership was chosen by the YPP Executive Committee as a ‘proof point project’ to demonstrate how a targeted and collaborative model can support outcomes for young people with complex needs. It was acknowledged that youth justice continued to be a priority of the South East Metropolitan Human Services Regional Managers Forum and AYIP was the most developed collaborative partnership across the local government areas. Whilst the decision was made to develop and trial the model in Armadale, the aim is to create a sustainable and scalable model that could be replicated in other local government areas with high youth offending. The processes outlined below were led by the YPP team with strong in-kind support from the City of Armadale.


14

SEPT 2016 - CO-DESIGN WORKSHOP To consolidate the AYIP model, a co-design process was initiated with young people who were engaged with AYIP partner services and with young people from the YPP Youth Leadership Roundtable who have lived experience or have been exposed to youth justice issues. Using human centred design methodology, the goals of this co-design process were to:

1. Align how services and youth participants define ‘youth at-risk’ by identifying the risk and protective factors (from a young person’s perspective) that lead to tertiary intervention (Police and Corrective Services).

2. Identify key stakeholders who need to be included in the implementation of the model and their roles and responsibilities.

3. Identify service gaps.

Through this process, young people identified six key ‘risk factors’ which lead to youth offending:

• POOR EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING

Young people identified anxiety, depression, stress, fear, anger and loneliness as factors which affected them every step of the way.

• LACK OF SKILLS TO COPE

Young people said they did not feel like they have the skills to cope with challenges. They said that when teachers do not understand their situation, or they feel targeted by police or transit guards, they do not feel they know how to handle it and therefore run away or get into a fight. They said they did not have someone to show them how to deal with things in a better way.

• POOR FAMILY FUNCTIONING Young people said they do not have a calm and safe environment at home, and there is “a lot going on” in their parents and/or other family’s lives.

• INADEQUATE ACCESS TO RESOURCES TO MEET BASIC NEEDS

Young people talked about leaving home in the morning without food, being able to have a hot shower, clean clothes, or money for transport.

• POOR EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT

Young people said that if they attend school, they feel that teachers “pick on them” and do not understand the other challenges they face. They said they cannot access support when they don’t understand the school work.

• STREET PRESENCE

Young people said that if there was fighting or violence at home, or they felt picked on at school, they spent time jumping trains and mixing with the ‘wrong crowd’ on the streets.

15

Young people then identified ‘protective factors’ that could support/prevent them from entering the juvenile justice system. Logically, the protective factors that young people identified addressed the risk factors they had noted. The protective factors they described could be grouped in the following areas:

• SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING • LIFE SKILLS • FAMILY SUPPORT • ADEQUATE RESOURCES • EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT • SAFE COMMUNITY SPACES

The YPP team then undertook a desktop review of literature on the impact of these factors on youth offending. The research provided additional evidence to what the young people had identified as the key protective factors. Additionally, as the partnership has developed, practitioners including teachers, youth workers, family support workers, clinical psychologists and police have added their collective insight based on their practice experience. These sources provide valuable insight into a young person’s journey into the juvenile justice system and how it can be prevented through a systematic and holistic approach to addressing these needs. These factors can also be correlated with the outcomes of the youth consultation carried out by the Commissioner for Children and Young People, ‘Speaking Out About Youth Justice’ (2016, p19).

The below outlines what the young people said in the co-design process and how research supports a focus on these areas in preventing youth crime.

Protective Factors SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING

Young people correlated their emotional state with the quality of their relationships with family and friends. Participants highlighted the benefits of having someone in their life to provide emotional support and advice on overcoming challenges such as feeling “depressed, anxious, worried, scared, without purpose, nervous, tired, unheard and unimportant, negative thoughts, and unwell” (Youth Partnership Project 2016 a). While we recognise mental health as an important aspect of social and emotional well-being, young people didn’t use this language. Therefore, in discussing this issue, we seek to use language similar to that used by young people.

Results obtained through standardised emotional and cognitive assessments undertaken with AYIP participants has shown a common trend of low emotional identification and bias. This has been a critical learning, as emotional intelligence directly impacts on behaviour, and if not addressed, will result in limited effectiveness in other areas i.e. life skill development, education engagement and so on. Furthermore, practitioners have identified the need to identify and consider other developmental challenges such as Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD), when understanding the young person’s social and emotional development needs, again to ensure that all other supports take a considered and appropriate approach.


16

Research conducted by Hubble, Bowen, Moore and Van Goozen (2015), confirms that children with anti-social behaviour show deficits in their perception of emotional expressions in others that may contribute to the development and persistence of antisocial and aggressive behaviour. Furthermore, constant feelings of stress, depression and anxiety is what Andrews & Bonta (2010) describe as anti-social cognitions, which can lead to anti-social behaviour. This can be effectively addressed by understanding and managing emotions and practising less negative/aggressive thoughts and feelings through activities designed to increase young people’s emotional intelligence (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Mathews & MacLeod, 1994; Utah Criminal Justice Centre, 2012). Therefore, it is critical that social and emotional development and well-being is addressed if an intervention is to be successful.

LIFE SKILLS Young people said they want to be able to cope with hard situations without running away or getting into fights. They want to have positive expectations for the day, allowing them to identify and achieve goals. Participants highlighted the benefits of having a positive role model/mentor in their life to help them distinguish between positive and negative peer influences, solve problems and help them make positive life choices (Youth Partnership Project 2016 a).

In practice, AYIP partners have identified the need to support the development of young people’s functional life skills such as: reading the time, money identification, hygiene and cooking skills; as necessary skills to be confident to function in mainstream society. Furthermore, practitioners have identified that social and emotional well-being directly impacts on life skills such as impulse control, problem solving etc. and therefore must be considered together.

The Risk Needs and Responsivity Framework (Andrews & Bonta, 2010) and Cognitive Models of Emotion (Mcleod,1994) state that life skills such as impulse control, problem solving skills, understanding of how to handle frustration and failure, self-esteem and self-belief mitigate personality traits directly related with criminal activity such as anti-social personality pattern, substance abuse (excluding tobacco) and anti-social behaviours (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Mathews & MacLeod,1994; Utah Criminal Justice Centre, 2012; Wilson, Mathews, MacLeod & Rutherford, 2006).

FAMILY SUPPORT Young people highlighted the importance and impact of family dynamics on their overall well-being. They said that at times their families lacked the ability to cope and make decisions that positively impact them and their siblings, and needed support to overcome these challenges (Youth Partnership Project 2016 a). This included care-givers’ social and emotional well-being, domestic violence and financial support (adequate access to resources will be described further below, but is intertwined with family support).

17

In addition, in practice, AYIP partners have identified that a caregiver’s lack of functional life skills such as financial management, reading etc. directly impacts on stress in the home environment and impacts on the young person’s well-being. Therefore, to support the family to support the young person, where practical they must be supported to develop these skills.

Research highlights that family is essential to improve life outcomes for young people, addressing intergenerational disadvantage by improving parenting capacity and enhancing positive supervision styles at home (Hemphill & Smith, 2010; McAtamney, & Morgan, 2009). Andrews and Bento (2010) have included family support in the “central eight” list of criminogenic needs due to the impact family functioning has on young people’s social and emotional well-being. Evidence demonstrates that interventions that focus on increasing secure attachment between the young person and a positive role model (Alvarado, Bellamy, Kumpfer & Smith, 2002; Hemphill & Smith, 2010; United Nations Office of Drug and Crime, n.d.) improved material and emotional conditions which demonstrate appropriate care (Resilience Research Centre, 2013; United Nations Office of Drug and Crime, n.d.). Improved parental supervision and parent child relationships reflected in positive routine and guidance (Alvarado et.al., 2002; Hemphill & Smith, 2010; United Nations Office of Drug and Crime, n.d.) help achieve a range of protective factors against youth offending. This can include improved academic achievement, increased life skills such as improved communication and problem-solving skills, optimal cognitive and emotional development, and behaviour in and outside home (Hemphill & Smith, 2010; United Nations Office of Drug and Crime, n.d.).

ADEQUATE RESOURCES Closely linked with family functioning, young people said they need access to basic resources like food, a washing machine to have clean clothes, identification, and money for public transport (Youth Partnership Project 2016 a). They highlighted how access to basic resources impacted on their social and emotional well-being and engagement at school.

In practice, AYIP partners have identified that over-crowding in the home is a challenge faced by many participants. This directly impacts on the young person’s well-being including sleep, feeling of safety, access to food etc. Furthermore, access to basic resources is often impacted by the number and transience of people living in the young person’s home. As a result, AYIP takes a complimentary approach to address both adequate resources and family support, recognising their interconnected relationship.

Whilst poverty itself is not considered a ‘criminogenic need’, it is still a contributing factor. Economic hardship is considered a risk factor for youth crime due to its impact on family dynamics and capacity of a family to meet their child’s material needs (Australian Institute Criminology,1998; Shader, n.d).


18

EDUCATION SUPPORT Young people said that they need supportive and understanding teachers who take time to help them. They want to feel safe to ask questions when they do not understand. They said they wanted people to be positive towards them at school and for teachers to ‘compliment’ them and focus on their strengths. Young people said they wanted to participate and do well at school (Youth Partnership Project 2016 a).

In practice, through spending an intensive amount of time with the young people in social situations during the holiday program, AYIP partners identified that many of the young people had very low literacy comparative to their age. This was further confirmed by initial assessments undertaken by the partner clinical psychologist. Further inquiry revealed that this had not been thoroughly understood or assessed by schools due to a lack of resources and high needs. Furthermore, AYIP partners have identified significant gaps in foundational academic knowledge, such as basic understanding of the alphabet, numbers etc. If these needs are not supported, it is challenging to engage the young person in the mainstream education setting.

Anti-social behaviours in young people are strongly associated with lack of educational support. Young people with low social and emotional well-being and life skills (as described above) can often find it challenging to engage positively in a mainstream school environment, which often leads to challenging relationships with peers and teachers. In this environment, young people can act in a disruptive manner to distract from their low educational capability, in addition to having low skills such as conflict resolution to respond positively to this challenging environment. Furthermore, young people can use anti-social behaviour to achieve their needs, for example to get attention from an adult, to indirectly draw attention to their pain and so on (Atherton,2013). Lack of attachment and anti-social behaviour in school are directly co-related with low levels of academic performance, lack of positive relationships at school and low levels of reward and gratification (Bento & Andrews 2010). Andrews 2010).

SAFE COMMUNITY SPACES Young people said they need to have “positive places to hang out”. They wanted to be able to play sport and other recreational activities in the community. Young people said they need someone who believes in them and they do not want to feel discriminated against (Youth Partnership Project 2016 a).

Sports and recreation activities can effectively address criminogenic needs through providing a point of positive community engagement, the right support to develop positive social relationships and a beneficial use of free time. Furthermore, in a similar fashion to life skills programs, these activities can address anti-social cognitions by supporting the development of self-regulation and self-efficacy skills (Morgan, Sibthorp, Wells, 2014; Andrews and Bento, 2016).

These six protective factors described above formed the ‘operational components’ of the AYIP model, moving beyond ‘diversionary or engagement programs’ collaborating, to a much more comprehensive approach to early intervention in youth justice. The full co-design report including methodology, can be viewed here.

http://youthpartnershipproject.org.au/uploads/files/publications/YPP_AYIP%20co-design%20workshop_Report_FINAL.pdf

19

AUG 2016 - DETERMINING OPERATIONAL PRIORITIES Whilst this document won’t discuss in detail the Collaborative Action Networks (CANs) that were an ‘intended strategy’ of the YPP, it is important to note that the early consultation work undergone in these networks, has informed the work of the YIP model. A series of consultation workshops were held with the CANs which identified the current barriers to creating positive outcomes for young people, which were transformed into corresponding ‘actions’ within a regional youth action plan. These were adopted as the operational priorities of the YIP, to demonstrate how these actions could be applied in a place-based and coordinated way. This includes:

• information sharing and continuous communication;

• improved collaboration and partnership;

• improved youth work standards and practices;

• strengthened relationships with young people; and

• shared measurement and evaluation systems.

The project has been working towards all of these, as is outlined in this document, including developing clear information sharing protocols, regular action oriented meetings, shared training, involving young people in design, and shared data and measurement. These operational priorities continue to guide the project’s work.

OCT 2016 - IDENTIFICATION OF ‘SYSTEM CIRCUIT BREAKERS’ Parallel to the co-design process and building on some of the work achieved in the YPP Collaborative Action Networks (CANs), AYIP partners identified “System Circuit Breakers”. That is, breaks in the current service system which meant young people were not being supported as well as they could, leading to engagement with tertiary services (Police, Corrective Services etc.). These included:

• No shared definition of young people with complex needs, or formal protocol for identifying young people at risk of engaging in the juvenile justice system.

• Lack of coordinated information sharing between government and non-government place-based services, including varied understanding of how the legislation applies.

• Lack of information sharing between Youth-At Risk team (Northbridge) and place-based support services.

• Not being able to identify/locate a responsible adult when a young person is arrested, leading to longer holding periods and/or detainment.

• Challenging relationship or ‘stigma’ between young people and police.

• Lack of support for young people to get a good start to their day and engage effectively with education.

• Limited coordination and relationships between schools and community support services.

• Lack of capacity of the Family Support Network to support young people in the care of child protection, which often meant young people who were at-risk of entering the juvenile justice system.


20

By focusing on these circuit breakers, the YPP could enable a better system, which works to support young people who have complex needs. Several of these ‘system circuit breakers’ have been addressed in the design and development of the YIP model, described below.

NOV 2016 - MAPPING OF GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES The Collective Impact approach is founded on the idea that no single policy or government department can solve complex and entrenched social problems such as intergenerational and place-based disadvantage. The approach requires multiple people and departments to align their individual agenda to a common agenda. To understand the current priorities and objectives of the various state government departments and reforms, the YPP team identified common threads between the respective strategies. Whilst each department has different mandates —whether it be educating children, protecting children or keeping the community safe—what is clear across government strategies and policies, is a shared commitment to early intervention, targeted support for young people with the most complex needs, and collaboration and coordination. This was a helpful process in enabling us to create a shared vision and shared language for change. The full document can be viewed here.

NOV 2016 - MAPPING OF SERVICES As described above, to have maximum impact, AYIP had to move beyond only ‘diversionary’ partners, to include a cross-sector of partners to provide support across the six operational components of the model identified in the co-design process. Furthermore, recognising that this intervention was designed to provide early intervention, it was important to map services across the intervention continuum. Both these frameworks were critical in providing a structure to identify the right partners for the project.

The YPP team mapped all of the youth services in the Armadale area using both of these frameworks, as can be shown below (see full service mapping here). Through this process 71 youth services were identified in the area. 35 of these were focussed on early intervention, however largely in the category of ‘adequate access to resources’ such as ‘once off’ food support or ‘social and emotional well-being’ for a specific issue such as bereavement or caring for a family member with a disability. Whilst these services are important in the community, they were not necessarily applicable to this project. Taking this

Figure 3: Vulnerability Vs Resilience Framework Figure 4: YIP Protective Factor Model

http://youthpartnershipproject.org.au/uploads/files/publications/Strategic%20Alignment%20July%202017.pdf

http://youthpartnershipproject.org.au/uploads/files/publications/Change%20the%20Story%20-%20Expanded%20Service%20Mapping.pdf

21

into consideration, there were 13 agencies/services within the area that could provide support to the objectives of the YIP model. This is how the partner agencies were identified.

In addition, the YPP team mapped existing networks and partnerships working with young people in the area, to ensure there was no duplication and to identify where this partnership could leverage from existing networks. It was evident that other networks and partnerships supporting young people were either focused on secondary intervention (for example the Integrated Offender Management meetings), or didn’t have a specific mandate but rather a broad focus on information sharing amongst youth services (for example the Armadale Youth Network). Therefore, we were confident that this model wasn’t duplicating existing collaborative networks. Furthermore, we identified the Family Support Network as a network that we could leverage support from (when appropriate). It was important for us to understand how this network operated to discover how our respective partnerships could support the work of the other, for the benefit of young people and their families.

DEC 2016 – A Shared Definition of Young People with Complex Needs: Focusing on Early Intervention Early Intervention Anecdotally, several AYIP partners who had worked in the Armadale community for some time acknowledged that they could ‘predict’ which children would become juvenile offenders before they were ‘criminally responsible’. In recognition of this, it was important to formalise our collective understanding of young people who had complex needs which made them at-risk of going on a juvenile justice trajectory, and provide support to prevent this path.

Adolescence is a time of vulnerability, as the brain develops unequally. The amygdala, which generates emotional responses, develops quicker than the prefrontal cortex, which enables rational thinking and behaviour control. This makes young people more susceptible to present impulsive, defiant and risk-taking behaviours, and lowers their capacity to foresee the consequences of their actions (Blakemore, Choudhury, 2006; Giedd, J, 2015; MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, 2017). Adolescence is also a time of opportunity because the brain is developing and learning to make sense of complex situations (Blakemore, Choudhury, 2006; Giedd, J, 2015; MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, 2017; Steinberg, L. 2014). It is therefore critical that young people have positive influences (such as mentors, role-models, and services) to teach them to control

Figure 5: Armadale Service Mapping Summary


22

their impulses and to avoid and/or positively respond to risk. Behaviour changes are more likely to be effected at a younger age when the brain has more plasticity, meaning that the executive function of the brain that connects thoughts and emotions (Blakemore & Cohoudhury, 2006), is still under construction and can be modified (Giedd, 2015).

Furthermore, trends analysis on age-related offending patterns have demonstrated that the severity and volume of criminal activity increases steadily from when a young person is criminally responsible (10 years old) and reaches a peak between the ages of 17 and 19 years-old, decreasing thereafter (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2012; MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, 2017). This trend is reflected in figure 6.

Shared Definition of Young People with Complex Needs

As highlighted in the ‘system circuit breaker’ section, it was identified that there was no consistent definition and/or process across government departments to identify young people at-risk of juvenile offending or becoming a prolific priority offender (PPO). As is demonstrated in figure 7 there are young people in the community who intersect with various government departments that we may be ‘collectively worried about’ but don’t have a mandate to work with, these can often be the ‘siblings’ of the children the agency may be supporting. Furthermore, there was no process in place to identify these young people early and provide targeted and holistic support to prevent a trajectory into tertiary services as they get older.

The YPP team developed a shared definition and matrix which was informed by consultation with government departments, desktop research, and the outcomes of the co-design workshop. The definition is based on the co-occurrence of needs, which places the young person in a situation of high vulnerability and increases their likelihood of engaging in antisocial behaviour.

A full explanation of the methodology can be viewed here and the matrix can be viewed in the ‘how it works’ section.

Figure 6: Rates of Crime by Age (MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, 2017)

Figure 7: Young people with an intersection of complex needs are the focus of the YIP Model

http://youthpartnershipproject.org.au/uploads/files/publications/AYIP_Young%20People%20with%20Complex%20Needs_Definition_2016.pdf

23

JAN 2017 – SECOND AYIP HOLIDAY PROGRAM In January 2017, the Armadale Youth Intervention Partnership (AYIP) again facilitated a school holiday program. With a renewed focus on early intervention, informed by the Shared Definition of Young People with Complex Needs, five young people were chosen by Armadale Police Youth Crime Intervention Officers, in consultation with schools and AYIP partners to take part. The program followed the same structure as in 2016 (described above). However, this program also introduced the clinical psychology assessments.

JAN 2017 - PARTNERSHIP WITH CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST Through the cognitive and emotional assessments conducted during the school holiday program, it was identified that whilst the young people all had varied strengths and challenges in cognitive functioning (i.e. impulse control, executive functioning etc.), there was a trend across participants which showed they all had low emotional identification and bias. All participants rated below the 15th percentile for emotional functioning. In other words, they find it challenging to identify basic facial expressions as fear or happiness and they are biased to identifying negative emotions over positive ones.

We are continuing to work with the clinical psychologist to identify how the YIP model can be further developed to meet this need. To date the partnership with the clinical psychologist has been pro-bono and the co-investment by WA Police (described below) will enable a more formal partnership, with the intention for all future YIP participants to take similar assessments.

FEB 2017 - CHANGE THE STORY CAMPAIGN LAUNCHED The YPP Team launched the #ChangeTheStory Campaign in response to damaging negative discourse in the media about young people from the Armadale area. This campaign reached over 30,000 people and raised the public profile of the YPP and AYIP.

APR 2017 - CHANGE THE STORY REPORT LAUNCH The Youth Partnership Project’s Change the Story Report was launched in National Youth Week 2017, providing a comprehensive analysis of the situation for young people in the South East Corridor of Perth and the services available to support them. Presented alongside the service mapping were data stories highlighting the urgency for early intervention action for young people with complex needs. The report highlighted AYIP’s example, and attracted high level engagement from state and local government, as well as the community services sector.

JUN 2017 - AYIP COORDINATOR POSITION ESTABLISHED As the design of the AYIP has evolved and become increasingly sophisticated, the need for a dedicated person to coordinate the partnership was evident. In 2017, the Coordinator position was created, and sub-contracted to the City of Armadale. Local government was chosen to host the position for various reasons, including: local government is place-based, it has no specific mandate i.e. child protection, safe communities etc. but rather a mandate to the needs of all young people, and the outcomes of the project provide a direct benefit to the community in the short term (for example community safety) and


24

long-term (for example increased civic participation). The position has been funded using both the YPP’s backbone funding from the Department of Communities, AYIP-specific funding from WA Police, financial contribution by Save the Children and the City of Armadale hosting and managing the project/position in-kind. More detail about the role is included in the ‘how it works’ section.

JUN 2017 - WA POLICE FUNDING In June 2017, WA Police Minister Michelle Roberts, announced funding for the Armadale Youth Intervention Partnership, which enhances the project’s sustainability. This funding has two key funding streams:

1. AN ALTERNATIVE LEARNING PROGRAM Save the Children will work in collaboration with the Department of Education and AYIP partners to deliver a flexible, community-based, alternative learning program for young people who are currently unable to engage in mainstream schooling, commencing Semester 1 2018. This was identified as a clear gap through the AYIP co-design process and the Change the Story report. The program will also respond to other learnings identified in the development of the YIP model including low literacy and emotional identification and bias (as described in detail above). This program will sit within the YIP model and leverage off the work of AYIP partner programs which address the other five components of the model (social and emotional well-being, life skill development, family support, access to resources, and safe community spaces ).

2. CONTRIBUTION TO AYIP COORDINATION AND OPERATIONAL COMPONENTS This funding will also partially contribute to the AYIP Coordinator role, which provides backbone coordination and support to the partnership as described above. Additionally, funding will contribute to activity costs of the school holiday program, the partnership with the clinical psychologist, including the assessment of their cognitive and emotional development, and will provide brokerage funding to support young people’s needs as they arise.

Whilst the WA Police investment provides significant contribution to enabling the YIP model, further co-investment is required, including additional funding for the AYIP Coordinator position, and operational components including school holiday activities and clinical psychology support.

SEPT 2017 – BREAKFAST CLUB As highlighted above, in 2016 the YPP facilitated a co-design workshop with young people who had been through the justice system, or were associated with someone who had. The results uncovered that a typical start to their day left them stressed, disorganised, hungry and with a mind-set unable to effectively function in a classroom environment. Following the appointment of an AYIP Coordinator, the partnership formulated a plan to combine resources and provide a "Breakfast Club" for a group of young people who had been on the holiday program and some of their siblings/cousins who had significantly poor school attendance.

Using youth workers who have long term, established relationships with the young people, they worked with families to arrange for them to have washed, be dressed in uniform and ready to leave at 7am.

25

They were then taken to a local community centre for a nutritious, cooked breakfast in a calm environment. Youth workers used this opportunity to teach young people how to prepare meals, table manners, healthy eating, cleaning up and working as a team. Teachers were also given the opportunity to attend, giving them a platform to further build trust with these young people in order to improve in-class relations.

Each young person was informed of their personal school attendance (provided by the school) and given a challenge to raise it over a period of time. They were also given a group attendance, performance and behaviour challenge to aim towards and if achieved, they celebrate with a fun excursion at the end of the term.

Over seven weeks, the results have seen five of the six young people participating improve their attendance from an average of 27 per cent to 97 per cent. Additionally, we also saw an improvement for in-class behaviour, attention and productivity, as reported by the schools. One young person had a reduction in days suspended from 39.5 days to 0.5. More significantly, he improved his reading level by ten benchmarks in one term.

This strategy will form a key part of the new alternative learning program and be continued in 2018.

OCT 2017 - FORMAL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING The Armadale Youth Intervention Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a formal written agreement between AYIP partner organisations, which clearly outlines the purpose, operational priorities, principles, operating provisions, and governance of the partnership. This document outlines how the work of the Partnership is strategically aligned to priorities of each of the partners and provides a framework for collaboration. The process of developing the MOU began in January 2017, and is now under final review by partners’ relevant legal teams.

The agreement’s operating provisions articulate partners’ roles and responsibilities, and provides an overview of how the partnership works together to identify and support young people with complex needs. Importantly, the operating provisions address the issue of sharing information between partners and provide protocols to guide appropriate exchange of information relating to young people and their families. This is enabled through an informed consent by both the young person and the caregiver, in accordance with relevant legislation and guided by the principle of ‘the best interest of the child’.

NEXT STEPS This version of the YIP model is the first phase of documenting the process, learnings and model. Whilst the partnership has been developing over some years, this financial year (2017-2018) is the first with dedicated resourcing to implement and coordinate the model. As we move to resourced implementation, we will continue to develop, refine, and importantly, build evidence. This will include continuing to engage with local Aboriginal elders in ensuring that the model is culturally appropriate and responsive to the community’s needs. The YPP team and Executive Committee will continue to provide oversight and leadership in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the model, to ensure it is effective and efficient and can be adapted and scaled to other local government areas.


26

HOW IT WORKS

Figure 8: How It Works

27

1) IDENTIFICATION: Targeted Support to the Right Young People The YIP model is not simply about better access to services, it changes the service system from predominantly being a passive receiver of referrals, to being proactive in engaging the right young people, at the right time. That is, engaging and providing support for those with the most complex needs early, before tertiary services are involved.

The YIP model works with children and young people aged 10-14. This age period is both a time when young people become considered criminally responsible, but is also a critical period of neuroplasticity when the brain is still developing and therefore cognitive functions are more adaptable.

As described in the YIP Journey, the YPP developed a cross-departmental definition of young people with complex needs at risk of entering the juvenile justice system and a matrix for identification of these young people. Whilst there cannot be an ‘absolute’ definition, and there is no ‘formula’ for a young person becoming a Prolific Priority Offender (PPO), some young people face challenging circumstances which put them at a greater risk than others. It is the concurrence and complexity of needs that place a young person in a situation of high vulnerability and increase their likelihood of developing anti-social behaviours, and therefore, increase their probability of contact with the juvenile justice system.

Research often sites, and empirical evidence indicates, that a young person’s relation/association with a PPO or POI (Person of Interest) and poor family functioning are highly influential ‘hard indicators’. As such the YIP model defines young people at risk of entering the juvenile justice system as: Young people aged between 10 and 14 years-old, who experience indicators 1 and 2 below, plus any additional individual and situational risk factors listed:

Situational risk factors

Individual risk factors

Hard Indicators

1. A young person who is, or is related to and/or associating with a Prolific Priority Offender or Person of Interest.

2. A young person living in a conflicting home environment due to all or some of the following: domestic violence; family members have problems with alcohol and substance misuse; unemployed; homeless; socially disadvantaged; family breakdown; transient families; lower socio-economic families

3. Street presence

4. A young person who has: a. School attendance rates below 59%, and/or b. 8+ suspensions and/or a total of 30 days

suspension1, and/or c. Critical incidences, including physical assault

or intimidating/threatening behaviour

Soft Indicators

5. Lack of recreational or positive leisure activities.

6. A young person presents with mental health concerns e.g. depression, anxiety, conduct disorders and/or alcohol and substance abuse

7. A young person who, if at school, is a. Not coping in classroom situations; b. Showing signs of low self-esteem and

problem-solving skills

It is important to note that this definition is not designed to be rigid, but rather a guide, therefore some young people who sit outside of this definition may be engaged in the project due to exceptional circumstance by agreement of the partners.

1 Department of Education classifies severe risk as attending between 0% - 59% and/or 8 suspension and/or 30 days of suspension


28

HOW THE PROCESS WORKS: The identification of young people is facilitated by the AYIP Coordinator and supported by the AYIP Steering Committee (see p. 37), using the definition of ‘young with complex needs’.

1. The Department of Education Regional office/ schools identify young people severely disengaged (less than 59 per cent attendance and/or eight suspensions).

2. Based on this list, the Department of Communities - Child Protection and Family Support identify young people living in a conflicting home environment due to all or some of the following: domestic violence; family members have problems with alcohol and substance misuse; unemployed; homeless; socially disadvantaged; family breakdown; transient families; lower socio-economic families.

3. From this list, WAPOL Youth Crime Intervention Officers identify young people associated with and/or related to a Prolific Priority Offender and/or Person of Interest.

29

2) GAINING CONSENT A key operational priority of the YIP model is to share information and have continuous communication between partners. At various stakeholder meetings, it was identified that there were different interpretations of the information sharing and privacy legislation. This created significant barriers to a cohesive service system that worked together to support vulnerable young people and their families. Therefore, it was important to ensure a shared understanding of the legislation. This has been supported through the provision of an MOU and gaining informed consent from identified young people and their families.

Information exchange between all partners is required to:

• Improve outcomes for children, young people and families.

• Better coordinate the delivery of services.

YIP partners exchange information and data in relation to young people and their families who have given informed consent to be a part of the project. The consent form also includes permission to undertake a cognitive and emotional assessment with the clinical psychologist (outlined in section 4). It is the responsibility of the YIP Coordinator to obtain this consent and provide a copy to all partners. Families/young people can withdraw their consent at any time, by contacting the YIP Coordinator. Information sharing is permitted and guided by relevant legislation, as outlined in the MOU.

HOW THE PROCESS WORKS: • YIP has a consent for information form (see appendix 2)

• The YIP Coordinator visits the family and young person and explains the partnership and the consent process. Where possible and practical, the Coordinator visits with another partner who has a relationship with the family/young person.

• Consent gained from family and young person

o If consent is not gained, the young person/family will not be engaged

• Consent can be withdrawn by the family at any time by contacting the YIP Coordinator

• If the family or young person express to another partner they no longer want to give consent, the YIP Coordinator will proactively contact the family or young person to discuss


30

3) BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS AND TRUST: Intensive Engagement The challenge with building trust with young people through the current service system, is the limited one-on-one time most programs have to build that relationship. Existing engagement programs such as Ignite Basketball or Y-time engage young people once a week for 3-4 hours over 48 weeks a year, equating to approximately 144 hours a year. Furthermore, these programs often have a low youth worker to young person ratio of 1:5. Whilst these programs are valuable, they do not provide sufficient time needed to engage young people with complex needs.

The Intensive Engagement program provides 120 hours of intensive engagement over a three-week period with a 1:2 youth worker to young person ratio. This is equivalent to a whole year of a young person engaging in a youth engagement program (such as Ignite Basketball or Y-time), with a much higher youth worker to young person ratio.

The key focus of this component of the model is to provide space for young people to build positive, safe and trusting relationships with youth workers. In doing so, the young person is more likely to engage in other supports which are typically more challenging for engagement, for example mental health services, based on the transference of relationship and trust. Furthermore, they’re more likely to access youth programs as a safe place such as Ignite and Y-time during the year, if they’ve built a trusting relationship with the people delivering those programs.

Whilst this document does not provide extensive detail of how this program works, the below information provides the key elements of the program, which are facilitated and led by the YIP Coordinator.

Key elements of the program: CHOOSING THE RIGHT STAFF In collaboration with partners, the highest skilled and experienced youth workers across organisations are chosen to lead the program. The young people this project targets are often cautious of adults and can have challenging behaviour. It is therefore critical to not just have the right program but the right people to engage the young people in the program. Staff participate in the activity planning and joint staff training.

BUILDING POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS With the program operating in an intensive capacity—five days a week over three weeks (120 hours)—it allows suitable time for bonding, trust and a positive mentoring relationship to be forged between the young person and the youth workers. Youth workers have time to genuinely get to know the participants, and the young people get to see the youth workers as more than just facilitators of a program but as mentors. The approach is not authoritarian but allows each new situation to be an opportunity to support the young person to develop life skills; manners, patience, appropriate language, conflict resolution, understanding and respecting boundaries, and more.

31

CREATING ROUTINE Through the co-design process, young people cited a lack of routine in their lives which included living between homes, inadequate sleep routine, irregular meals, low or no school attendance, and unstable relationships. By picking the young people up at a set time each day, providing a sit-down breakfast, and taking part in education followed by adventure activities, the holiday program provides expectation and stability. This routine also prepares them for re-engagement in school. This, along with positive, consistent relationships with youth workers, creates a feeling of safety within the group and a foundation that trust can grow from.

DESIGNED WITH YOUNG PEOPLE In order to establish a sense of ownership for the young people, the intensive engagement program is developed through a collaborative design process. Once the participants and their families have consented and committed to be a part of the program, youth workers hold a discussion with participants, brainstorming options for the holiday program. Questions asked include:

• If you could learn about anything, what would that be?

• If you could do anything to help your city and its people, what would that be?

• If you could do anything (legal!) for fun, what would that be?

These questions get participants thinking about the possibilities; initiating interest and investment in the program and help them to see that the youth workers are there to support them achieve their own goals. The conversation gives an opportunity to discuss some of the issues young people face and social issues they see in their community, as well as considering solutions to these issues.

Participants’ ideas about fun activities usually start on a small scale, with suggestions such as seeing a movie, going to the swimming pool, or indoor trampolining. These ideas are included, but youth workers then challenge participants to think bigger, making suggestions of things they may have never had the chance to do, such as wake boarding, indoor skydiving, surfing, jet boating or open sea kayaking. These activities are typically outside the boundaries for the participants due to financial or geographical reasons, but youth workers get young people excited about these possibilities, and ownership of the program.

BOUNDARIES AND RESTORATIVE PRACTICE With a program of this nature, it is essential to have boundaries set in place that are agreed by all participants. In the pre-planning stages, the young people decide what the rules are going to be and the consequences if they are not followed. To participate fully in the three-week program, young people must stay out of trouble with the law. In the event of breaking the law or coming into contact with police, they miss a day and need to earn their way back into the program with a challenging circuit class. In the event of this happening, youth workers support the young person in achieving this through a restorative process, ensuring it is utilised as an opportunity to build life skills. Additionally, young people are not able to participate if it is suspected they are under the influence of drugs.


32

This information is entered into a chart for everyone to refer to. Broken rules are a natural part of the “boundary testing phase” and serve to help bond the group, such is the tough but supportive approach that the “Earn Back” session entails.

GIVING BACK The program incorporates a community based ‘giving back’ element in the mornings followed by a fun, adventurous activity in the afternoon. These small acts assist community members in a variety of ways and give the young people a different perspective, as well as a sense of pride for how they can contribute to the community. The act of giving back and helping others can be transformative, from (self-viewed) feeling like a victim to becoming an empowered citizen.

ADVENTURE ACTIVITIES While the program features mainstream activities that the young people are accustomed to such as trips to the movies, swimming pool or Bounce, the program includes larger scale activities that they have never had the chance to do. They are challenging, adrenaline themed and take them out of their comfort zone. This can include wake boarding, indoor skydiving, rock climbing, army assault courses, jet boating and more. These activities provide the young people with an opportunity to have new experiences, learn life skills through ‘play’ and continue to build relationships with the youth workers as they are supported to succeed through encouragement and consistency.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITY AND SERVICE ENGAGEMENT As already highlighted, these participants can often be untrusting of adults and services. Once the young people have established trust with the youth workers, they are more likely to engage with other services which the youth worker identifies as safe. This is facilitated by activities such as a visit to headspace, giving an opportunity for participants to become familiar with services in a safe and comfortable setting. This can lead to opportunities in building relationships with other services such as police, the community centre and so on. It also provides a chance for young people to identify other people in the community who are safe and to start forging these relationships. By negating the ‘us and them’ scenario between the young people and the community, we are building bridges that support improved future community relations. Additionally, this provides community members with an opportunity to see the child behind the behaviour, and ultimately be more empathetic.

ENGAGEMENT WITH FAMILY Young people with complex needs often have challenging family environments, including intergenerational family breakdown. It can take months or years for a school, police officer or family support service to gain the trust of a family. Through the intensive engagement program youth workers are in contact with the family every day, allowing for relationships to build. The youth worker can discover needs within the family home and provide warm introductions to support services, based on the trust established with the young person and their family.

33

HOW THE PROCESS WORKS: • The YIP Coordinator works with partners to identify staff to deliver the program

• Design the activities with the young people based on ‘giving back’ and ‘adventure’ activities

• Develop the rules and consequences with the young people

• Engage other community services in the program activities

• Focus throughout the program on building a positive and trusting relationship with the young person and their family


34

4) ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS Observational Assessments As highlighted, the intensive engagement program provides opportunities for the youth workers to build a trusting relationship with the young people and their families. In doing so, they observe and identify needs across the six areas of the model; social and emotional well-being, life skills, family support, adequate access to resources, education support and safe community spaces. A template for documenting observational assessments in the framework of the Youth Intervention Partnership Proactive Factors is used by partners, and can be found in appendix 3.

Below are three examples from previous School Holiday Programs where needs have been identified through observation assessment which may not have otherwise been recognised:

1. Youth workers took young people to various restaurants as a part of the program. Each time they went to an unfamiliar restaurant the young people would become disruptive and generally unsettled. When asked to order off the menu, it became evident that their behaviour was to distract from the fact that they could not read the menu. Through being in the young people’s ‘life space’ the youth workers could identify literacy as a significant challenge that required further exploration and support.

2. One morning the youth workers went to pick up one of the young people from their home. The caregiver said that the young person was not home, and they were not sure where they were. The next day, the caregiver again noticed they were not home and she was not sure where the young person was. Staff were concerned that no-one knew the whereabouts of the young person. On day three the young person returned and said they had been at their auntie’s home. Through this situation, the staff were able to understand that the young person lived between three homes and had various support people in their kinship network, as well as what support may be required to establish a regular routine when school returned.

3. Through discussions on a bus trip to an activity, it was identified that one of the young people had not been to school for 12 months (all of Year Six). Upon further discussions with their mother, she was not clear on what school year her child should be in. This provided opportunity for education partners to identify which school and year the young person should be enrolled in and ensure they were provided with support to re-engage.

Cognitive and Emotional Assessments Furthermore, the YIP model includes a partnership with a clinical psychologist. During the intensive engagement program, the young person is supported to engage with the clinical psychologist to complete a cognitive and emotional assessment to further understand their individual needs. This helps identify where support can be provided by services, including what supports need to be provided within Individual Education Plans (IEP’s) with respective schools. These assessments take place towards the end of the intensive engagement program, as the relationships and trust built with youth workers are

35

used to enable young people to engage with this process which might otherwise be confronting. These assessments assess the following areas of cognitive and emotional functioning:

COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING • Response Speed - the speed in which a young person can understand and respond to the

information they receive (visual, auditory or movement).

• Impulse Control - ability to control responses based on stimuli received.

• Attention/Concentration – the ability to concentrate and sustain attention on a specific task and resist distractions.

• Information Processing Efficiency - processing complex information under time demands, which requires a balance of focus and flexibility.

• Short Term Memory - aspects of memory that require learning new information, holding information ‘online’ and recalling it later.

• Executive Function – capacity to plan, execute and monitor actions, using feedback to adjust and organise behaviour to meet goals.

EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING • Emotional Identification - identification of basic facial expressions of emotion, such as fear

and happiness, which reflects emotional functioning.

• Emotional Bias - measurement of the time taken to recognise faces, and identification of bias to negative or positive faces.

HOW THE PROCESS WORKS: • Based on intensive engagement with young people, youth workers provide observations

to the YIP Coordinator across the six areas of need at the end of each day or week (as practical) of the intensive engagement program.

• The clinical psychologist, with the support of the youth workers, undertakes cognitive and emotional assessments with the young people in week three of the program.

• Both assessments are used to inform the coordination of services as well as the young person’s Individual Education Plan (IEP) and other relevant documented plans at their respective school.


36

5) COORDINATED AND HOLISTIC SUPPORT Young people do not become involved in the justice system simply with ‘behavioural problems’, rather they have complex needs which cut across various government department and service provider responsibilities. An effective service system therefore must reflect this complex need, oppose to isolated programs addressing singular needs. As described in the YIP Journey, the YPP team undertook a co-design process with young people who had lived experience of the juvenile justice system or had been exposed to youth justice issues through association, to determine the operational components of the model. Desktop research was also provided as supplementary evidence to what the young people had identified as key protective factors, as well as any additional insights from practice.

Through this process, six protective factors were identified which could prevent their trajectory to the juvenile justice system. As described in detail in the YIP Journey, this included six key areas of support:

• Social and Emotional Well-being – Support the development of young people’s social and emotional well-being, including connection to culture which impacts on identity and belonging, as well as emotional identification and bias, that impacts on behaviours and relationships with family, peers and community (including school).

• Life Skills – Support young people to develop skills that support positive life choices and engagement in society. This includes behavioural skills such as impulse control, self-regulation and communication and functional life skills such as reading time, basic financial literacy and hygiene.

• Family Support – Support parents/care-givers to meet their child’s needs and create a safe home environment; including supporting parents/care-givers social and emotional well-being, functional life skills, parenting skills and other environmental factors.

• Access to Resources – Support young people and families to access resources to meet essential and immediate needs and develop skills to sustainably access essential resources into the future i.e. food, appropriate housing, utilities.

• Education Engagement – Support young people to engage in education and increase exposure to the traditional education model; supporting the development of foundational knowledge, with a focus on numeracy and literacy.

• Safe Community Spaces – Provide safe spaces for young people to positively engage in the community and increase cultural and social support networks i.e. Aboriginal mentors, youth programs and sporting clubs.

This model acknowledges that whilst these protective factors are listed as distinctive areas of support, they are interconnected, and one area contributes to another (i.e. social and emotional well-being directly impacts on life skills, which impacts on ability to engage in education or a sports club and so on). This further confirms the need for comprehensive and coordinated support for young people, as outlined in this model.

37

Strategic Partnership As highlighted in the YIP Journey, partners were identified by mapping services against these six operational components of the model and against the intervention spectrum (to focus on those providing early intervention). The partnership aligns services to a common goal in prioritising the engagement of young people with complex needs and reducing the risk of these young people entering the juvenile justice system.

This partnership is both horizontal (a cross-sector of partners i.e. mental health, education etc.) and vertical (collaborating with both the managers of services and youth workers/professionals working directly with young people). Furthermore, the partnership includes sharing and access to resources that builds collaboration (i.e. sharing the use of a bus, contributing in-kind staffing support).

YIP is comprised of two categories of partners:

• SERVICE DELIVERY PARTNERS

Agencies or organisations who deliver services for young people and their families in one of the operational components of the YIP model. These partners are signatory to the MOU. An example of partners across the six areas of the model is provided in appendix 4 - AYIP Service Delivery Partners.

• COMMUNITY PARTNERS

Organisations or businesses who support YIP by providing assistance with specific tasks or needs as they arise. For example, local cafés, Rotary Clubs etc.

Resourced Coordination The YIP model has a resourced position dedicated to coordinating the partnership. This includes working with the YIP Steering Committee to identify young people using the project’s ‘definition of young people with complex needs’, and coordinating the cross-sector of partners across the thematic areas of the model. This ensures quality and cohesive services that holistically support a reduction in risk factors and provide them with opportunities to develop and thrive.

This role:

• Improves collaboration and partnerships. • Enables information sharing and continuous communication amongst stakeholders. • Improves youth work standards and practices across partner services. • Strengthens relationships between young people and the service system. • Supports the collection of data, based on shared measurement and evaluation.

Memorandum of Understanding The YIP has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department of Communities - Child Protection and Family Support, Western Australia Police, Department of Education, the local government authority and signatory Non-Government Organisations (NGOs). This MOU is signed at the highest level required on behalf of employees from each of these respective agencies.


38

The MOU outlines the operational priorities and principles, operating provisions, monitoring and evaluation and governance of the project. This provides all partners with a shared understanding of the partnership and clear roles and responsibilities, including the provision of sharing information and data.

YIP Steering Committee The YIP Steering Committee provides oversight under the provision of the MOU. The group meets monthly to work together to provide effective and transparent decision making and general advice to ensure the successful implementation of the YIP model.

Membership is made up of a representative from each of the government signatories of the MOU, with the YIP Coordinator representing the NGO partners. Each agency is to nominate the most senior local area manager with appropriate decision-making authority.

The YIP Steering Committee has a Terms of Reference, as agreed by the membership.

Continuous Communication The YIP Coordinator facilitates continuous communication between partners. The structured element of this communication takes place at YIP meetings, chaired and coordinated by the YIP Coordinator. This also includes collaborative tools (described below).

Front line meetings are held approximately fortnightly for front line workers (youth workers, family support workers, mentors and relevant school staff). This includes contributing to collaborative action planning, providing client progress updates, as well as sharing best practice and problem solving. There may be times when extraordinary meetings need to be called in high needs situations.

Operational meetings are held approximately bi-monthly for Team Leaders and Managers of all partner organisations. This includes a summary of client progress, identifying and addressing issues or gaps and further partnership opportunities. Meetings are chaired and coordinated by the YIP Coordinator.

In addition, the YIP Coordinator is the central mechanism for communication between meetings, to ensure the young people and their families are provided with support in a responsive and flexible manner.

Shared Standards and Practices TRANSPARENCY The planning, design, delivery and evaluation of the YIP model is an ever-changing learning process that will be refined to become more effective over time. It is important to accept that no one organisation or individual has the answers, but what we do have is a collective wealth of experience to form a system of best practice based on research, experience, practical application and subsequent, tangible long-term results.

However, in order to make the most of this experience, we need to ensure there is high transparency between partners. Very often, the strategy to success is something which is kept within the confines of an organisation. Once program delivery is complete, the information of what happened, how it

39

happened and potentially ground-breaking approaches are rarely shared with other organisations whose participants could also benefit.

Through the monitoring and evaluation process, we will aim to document both the successes and failures of strategies undertaken. If for instance, a young person with complex needs has been previously disengaged from education and a partner organisation successfully uses a particular technique to build a relationship, involve the family and significantly improve attendance and performance, this will be recorded and openly shared. If this approach fails (either as a whole or in a highlighted area), it is important that as a partnership we are open about this and examine why, so that in future we can maximise the potential of our combined resources and efforts.

By embracing this transparent approach, we recognise the shared responsibility to combine our collective experience and expertise to address the shared problems being experienced by young people in our communities.

SHARED TRAINING Standardised training for professions such as youth work, teaching, policing and so on, does not provide in-depth consideration for the context in which those professions will work (i.e. a youth worker is not provided with different training depending on whether they will work in a high-socio economic school or within youth justice). However, the needs within low-socio economic communities or communities with high crime, are very different to those that have less entrenched disadvantage and therefore require a workforce with different professional knowledge and skills. For example, a teacher in a high-socio economic school is less likely to need in-depth understanding of intergenerational poverty and complex trauma, however that is critical when working within communities with high youth crime. It is therefore important that as a partnership, we work to ensure that the workforce is as highly educated and skilled as possible to meet the needs of the community in which they work.

Working with a wide range of partners brings significant experience and understanding of the youth service sector. Furthermore, it brings specialist expertise that may not exist across all partners i.e. mental health, clinical psychology, education and so on. All of them bring technical knowledge which add immense value in supporting the young person’s needs holistically. Whilst acknowledging that all partners do not need to be an expert in everything, it aims to increase effectiveness across the partnership. For example, educators don’t need to be an expert in social and emotional well-being, but understanding how trauma impacts on brain development enables them to be more effective. With so many technical experts in the partnership, the model aims to harness the knowledge and skills of the collective, through regularly scheduled workshops throughout the year, hosted by different partners. By doing so, it also increases consistency of approaches across the system supporting young people.

Additionally, it is typical practice for organisations to undertake professional development training, exploring different examples of best practice. However, often these experiences and learnings are not shared as well as they could be between different agencies. The YIP model seeks to change this, by facilitating communication between partners on shared training opportunities.


40

COLLABORATION TOOLS • Collaborative Action Plan (Appendix 5)

This central document is a tool to develop a collaborative, cohesive strategy for partners working with a young person. Needs which have been identified through observational, cognitive and emotional assessments are articulated; and realistic, achievable goals are developed with the participant and their families. All work towards goals by different agencies are documented on one plan, so all agencies can see how they are contributing to the shared objectives of the collaboration. The YIP Coordinator coordinates the collaboration and progress towards goals, through frontline and operational meetings.

• Participant Services Map (Appendix 6) This document is a clear, visual representation of which services are working with a young person in the community, as well as when and how. This helps avoid the overlapping and duplication of services, and serves as an easy reference guide for caregivers and all partners to access.

• Participant Progress Snapshot (Appendix 7) Partners working with young people share data, which is collated by the YIP Coordinator and translated to an easy to read document called a “Participant Progress Snapshot”. Each month, the Snapshot is informed by all partners currently engaging, and is used to record and clearly identify progress each month and over the course of the year. It features information such as the assigned mentor, baseline literacy level, school attendance, suspensions and grades and services accessed. Finally, there is a summary of collaborative actions undertaken by partners.

HOW THE PROCESS WORKS: • Dedicated YIP Coordinator employed by local government authority.

• Partners identified using the co-designed model and intervention spectrum frameworks.

• MOU signed by all partners enabling sharing of information and data.

• YIP Steering Committee meets monthly to provide oversight of the succssful implementation of the YIP model, provide effective, transparent decision making and general advice.

• Front line workers (youth workers, family support workers, mentors, relevant school staff) meet fortnightly, to set actions using Collaborative Action Plan, provide progress updates, share best practice and problem solve (Chaired by YIP Coordinator).

• Frontline staff provide weekly updates to YIP Coordinator of contacts, progress, challenges.

• Operational meetings are held bi-monthly for Managers and Team Leaders, of all partner organisations. This includes a summary of client progress, identifying and addressing issues or gaps and further partnership opportunities. (Chaired by the YIP Coordinator).

• Actions sent after meetings by YIP Coordinator with traffic light system (which is updated and re-sent as completed).

• YIP Coordinator facilitates shared learning and communication between partners on shared training opportunities.

41

CONCLUSION

The Youth Intervention Partnership model presented in this document is not ‘another program’—it rethinks the service system and changes the way it operates. It is premised on the theory that if we adjust and focus the system to provide the right support, to the right young people, at the right time, we will not only create significant savings in expenditure on tertiary services but, more importantly, young people will thrive in their communities.

Juvenile justice is a complex problem, which defies technical solutions. This model acknowledges that a solution to this multifaceted intergenerational problem cannot be achieved by one organisation, service or person. To change this story, it requires the united will, intelligence and expertise of many, acting together.

Using Armadale as a proof of concept, the YPP set out to prove that a targeted, collaborative and place-based approach, with purposely resourced backbone leadership, can create better outcomes for young people with complex needs. This document is the first phase of documenting the process, learnings and model. Whilst the YPP has been developing over some years, this financial year will be the first with dedicated resourcing to implement the YIP model. As we move to resourced implementation, we will continue to develop, refine, and importantly, build evidence. The YPP team and Executive Committee continues to provide oversight and leadership in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the YIP model, to ensure it is effective and efficient, and can be adapted and scaled to other local government areas.

Together we can change the story of Western Australia’s most vulnerable young people.


42

REFERENCES

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012. Armadale (C) (Local Government Area), Basic Community. Profile: ‘B07 INDIGENOUS STATUS BY AGE BY SEX’, Community Profiles, cat. no. 2001.0, ABS, Canberra. Available at: http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/LGA50210 [Accessed November 2016].

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012. Belmont (C) (Local Government Area), Basic Community Profile: ‘B07 INDIGENOUS STATUS BY AGE BY SEX’, Community Profiles, cat. no. 2001.0, ABS, Canberra. Available at: http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/LGA50490 [Accessed November 2016].

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012. Canning (C) (Local Government Area), Basic Community Profile: ‘B07 INDIGENOUS STATUS BY AGE BY SEX’, Community Profiles, cat. no. 2001.0, ABS, Canberra. Available at: http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/LGA51330. [Accessed November 2016].

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012. Gosnells (C) (Local Government Area), Basic Community Profile: ‘B07 INDIGENOUS STATUS BY AGE BY SEX’, Community Profiles, cat. no. 2001.0, ABS, Canberra. Available at: http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/LGA53780. [Accessed November 2016].

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012. South Perth (C) (Local Government Area), Basic Community Profile: ‘B07 INDIGENOUS STATUS BY AGE BY SEX’, Community Profiles, cat. no. 2001.0, ABS, Canberra. Available at: http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/LGA57840. [Accessed November 2016].

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012. Victoria Park (T) (Local Government Area), Basic Community Profile: ‘B07 INDIGENOUS STATUS BY AGE BY SEX’, Community Profiles, cat. no. 2001.0, ABS, Canberra. Available at: http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/LGA58510 [Accessed November 2016].

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015. Population, Estimated Resident Population, ERP by LGA (ASGS 2014), Age and Sex, 2001 to 2014, Regions of Australia. Available at: http://stat.data.abs.gov.au/. [Accessed November 2016].

Australian Institute Criminology, 1998. What Causes Youth Crime? [Media Release]. Available at: http://www.aic.gov.au/media/1998/april/980424.html [Accessed September 2017]

Australian Institute of Criminology, 2012. The impact of structural aging on crime rates: A South Australia case study. Available at: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi431.pdf [Accessed September 2017]

Alvarado. R, Bellamy. B, Kumpfer. K, Smith. P., 2002. ‘Cultural Sensitivity and Adaptation in Family-Based Prevention Interventions. Prevention Science’. The Official Journal of the Society for Prevention Research. (3):241-246. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12387558 [Accessed September 2017]

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/LGA50210




http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/LGA57840.


https://stc365-my.sharepoint.com/personal/hannah_woodward_savethechildren_org_au/Documents/YIP%20Model/Available%20at:%20http:/stat.data.abs.gov.au/

http://www.aic.gov.au/media/1998/april/980424.html

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi431.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12387558

43

Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (Eds.), 2010. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (5th Edition ed.). New Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., LexisNexis Group

Atherton, D., 2013. The Relationship between the school environment and antisocial Behaviour. School of Global, Urban and Social Studies College of Design and Social Context. RMIT Available at: https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:160460/Atherton.pdf [Accessed September 2017]

Hemphill, S. Smith, R., 2010. Preventing Youth Violence. What does and doesn’t work and why? Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth. Available at: https://www.aracy.org.au/publications-resources/command/download_file/id/122/filename/Preventing_Youth_Violence_-_What_does_and_doesn%27t_work_and_why.pdf [Accessed September 2017]

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2016. Youth detention population in Australia 2016. Bulletin 138. Cat. no. AUS 210. Canberra, AIHW. Available from: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129557685. [Accessed November 2016].

Blakemore, S-J., & Choudhury, S., 2006. ‘Development of the adolescent brain: implications for executive function and social cognition’ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47:3/4 (2006), pp 296–312. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01611.x/full [Accessed 11/9/2017]

Commissioner for Children and Young People WA, 2016. Speaking About Youth Justice. Commissioner for Children and Young People WA: Perth. Available at: https://www.ccyp.wa.gov.au/media/2411/final-speaking-out-youth-justice-web-version-december-2016.pdf [Accessed September 2017]

Department for Child Protection and Support Services, WA. Youth at Risk Strategy. 2015-2018. Available at: https://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/Organisation/Documents/At%20Risk%20Youth%20Strategy%202015-2018.pdf [Accessed September 2017]

Department of Corrective Services WA, 2016 a. Annual Report 2015-2016. Available at: http://www.correctiveservices.wa.gov.au/_files/about-us/statistics-publications/statistics/2016/quarterly/2016-quarter3-youth-custody.pdf [Accessed November 2016].

Department of Corrective Services, 2016 b. Number of young people receptions into custody per LGA, South East Corridor 2013-2016 [Data]. Unpublished.

Department of Education WA, 2016, School Attendance Rates per Local Government Area 2016, [Data] Unpublished.

Department of Education WA, Number of Clients Who Engaged with South Metropolitan (East) Participation Team in 2016 In Identified LGAs (DOB 1 July 1998 – 30 June 2000), [Data] Unpublished.

Department of Premier and Cabinet WA, 2013. Aboriginal Youth Expenditure Review 2013. Available at: https://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/Publications/Documents/Aboriginal%20Youth%20Expenditure%20Review.pdf

Giedd, J, 2015. ‘The Amazing Teen Brain’. Scientific American – May 2015. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277935210_The_Amazing_Teen_Brain [Accessed September 2017]

Graham, K., 2016. ‘A Collective Impact Learning Lab’ Social Ventures Australia Quarterly. Available at: http://www.socialventures.com.au/sva-quarterly/collective-impact-learning-lab [Accessed September 2017]

Grgorenko, E., 2012. ‘At the Junction of Personality Theories: Working with Juvenile Offenders’. Handbook of Juvenile Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry [E-Book]. Available at: http://www.springer.com/us/book/9781461409045 [Accessed November 2016].

https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:160460/Atherton.pdf

https://www.aracy.org.au/publications-resources/command/download_file/id/122/filename/Preventing_Youth_Violence_-_What_does_and_doesn%27t_work_and_why.pdf

https://www.aracy.org.au/publications-resources/command/download_file/id/122/filename/Preventing_Youth_Violence_-_What_does_and_doesn%27t_work_and_why.pdf

http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129557685

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01611.x/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01611.x/full

https://www.ccyp.wa.gov.au/media/2411/final-speaking-out-youth-justice-web-version-december-2016.pdf

https://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/Organisation/Documents/At%20Risk%20Youth%20Strategy%202015-2018.pdf

http://www.correctiveservices.wa.gov.au/_files/about-us/statistics-publications/statistics/2016/quarterly/2016-quarter3-youth-custody.pdf

http://www.correctiveservices.wa.gov.au/_files/about-us/statistics-publications/statistics/2016/quarterly/2016-quarter3-youth-custody.pdf

https://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/Publications/Documents/Aboriginal%20Youth%20Expenditure%20Review.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277935210_The_Amazing_Teen_Brain

http://www.socialventures.com.au/sva-quarterly/collective-impact-learning-lab

http://www.springer.com/us/book/9781461409045


44

Hawkins, J.D., Herrenkohl, T., Farrington, D., Brewer, D., Catalano, R., Harachi, T., & Cothern. L,. 2000. ‘Predictors of Youth Violence.’

Juvenile Justice Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice. Available at: http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/people/academic_research/david_farrington/predviol.pdf [Accessed November 2016.]

Hubble, K., Bowen, KL., Moore, SC., & van Goozen, SH., 2015. ‘Improving Negative Emotion Recognition in Young Offenders Reduces Subsequent Crime’. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0132035. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132035 [Accessed September 2017]

Kania, J & Kramer, M, 2011, ‘Collective impact’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2011. Available from: http://ssir.org/articles/entry/collective_impact [Accessed: November 2016]

MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, 2017. How Should Justice Policy Treat Young Offenders? Available at: http://www.lawneuro.org/adol_dev_brief.pdf [Accessed September 2017]

Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C., 1994. ‘Cognitive Approaches to Emotion and Emotional Disorders’. Annual Review of Psychology. 45:25-50 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.45.020194.000325 [Accessed September 2017]

McAtamney. A., & Morgan, A., 2009. ‘Key issues in antisocial behaviour’. Research in Practice: Summary no. 5. Available at: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/1-10/05.aspx [Accessed September 2017]

Morgan, C., Sibthorp, J., Wells, M., 2014. ‘Fun, Activities, and Social Context Leveraging Key Elements of Recreation Programs to Foster Self-Regulation in Youth’. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. Volume 32, Number 3. Pp. 74-91. Available at: http://search.proquest.com/openview/08b7f1fc08253a32fc13b2793913c4c1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2037373 [Accessed September 2017]

Partnership Forum Youth at Risk Working Group, 2016. Principles for Developing Services for At-risk Young People in Western Australia. [Accessed October 2016]

Resilience Research Centre, 2013. A Multidimensional Model of Resilience. Available at: http://www.resilienceproject.org/about-the-rrc/our-approach/16-a-multidimensional-model-of-resilience [Accessed September 2017]

Shader, M., n.d. Risk factors for delinquency: An Overview. U.S. Department of Justice. Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/frd030127.pdf [Accessed September 2017]

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999. ‘Characteristics and Patterns of At-Risk Juveniles and Factors That Contribute to Violence Committed By or Against Juvenile.’ Report to Congress on Juvenile Justice Research. Available at: https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/jvr/1.html [Accessed November 2016]

United Nations Office of Drug and Crime, n.d. Compilation of Evidence-Based Family Skills Training Programmes. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/prevention/family-compilation.pdf [Accessed September 2017]

Utah Criminal Justice Centre, 2012. ‘Risk and Criminogenic Needs’. Program Improvement Resource Materials. Available at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Risk-and-Criminogenic-Needs.pdf [Accessed September 2017]

Western Australia Police 2016, Prolific Priority Offenders per Local Government Area [Data], Unpublished.

Wilson, E., Mathews, A., MacLeod, C., & Rutherford, E., 2006. ‘The Causal Role of Interpretive Bias in Anxiety Reactivity.’ Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2006, Vol 115, No 1, 103-111. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16492101 [Accessed September 2017]

Youth Partnership Project 2016 a, Co-Design Workshop. Youth centred early intervention model for young people with complex needs. Available from: http://youthpartnershipproject.org.au/uploads/files/publications/YPP_AYIP%20codesign%20workshop_Report_FINAL.pdf [Accessed September 2017].

http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/people/academic_research/david_farrington/predviol.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132035

http://ssir.org/articles/entry/collective_impact

http://www.lawneuro.org/adol_dev_brief.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.45.020194.000325

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/1-10/05.aspx

http://search.proquest.com/openview/08b7f1fc08253a32fc13b2793913c4c1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2037373

http://www.resilienceproject.org/about-the-rrc/our-approach/16-a-multidimensional-model-of-resilience

http://www.resilienceproject.org/about-the-rrc/our-approach/16-a-multidimensional-model-of-resilience

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/frd030127.pdf

https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/jvr/1.html

https://www.unodc.org/documents/prevention/family-compilation.pdf

http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Risk-and-Criminogenic-Needs.pdf

http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-843X.115.1.103

http://youthpartnershipproject.org.au/uploads/files/publications/YPP_AYIP%20codesign%20workshop_Report_FINAL.pdf

45

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: HOW TO READ THE DATA STORY


46

APPENDIX 2: AYIP CONSENT FORMS


48

APPENDIX 3: OBSERVATIONAL ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE

49

APPENDIX 4: AYIP SERVICE DELIVERY PARTNERS

Operational Component

Partner Program Role and Responsibility

SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING

Grow Your Life n/a

Clinical Psychologist, providing assessments and guidance to IEP's, mentors etc.

headspace Armadale headspace Services Mental health counselling & mental health education

HOPE Community services

Counselling Drug and Alcohol counselling, youth mentors

LIFE SKILLS

YMCA Y-time, RAGE

Case management/mentoring, anger management education

Save the Children Reconnect and Strong Path

Case management/mentoring

Mission Australia Youth-at-risk project Case management/mentoring

FAMILY SUPPORT

Department of Child Protection and Family Support

Aboriginal Practice Leaders

Advice and guidance, case management referral as needed

Parkerville Armadale Family Support Network 2

Access to family support services

Save the Children Reconnect Family case management

WA Police YCIO’s, FDV team Family Domestic Violence Support

ACCESS TO ADEQUATE RESOURCES

Champion Centre Partnership Second Bite

Provision of food, flexible response to needs

EDUCATION SUPPORT

Local Schools Principal & Deputy Principal

Education support, development and implementation of IEP's

Department of Education

Regional Engagement

Advice and guidance

Parkerville School Based Support Services

Counselling, assistance and psychoeducational group programs

Save the Children Strong Path

Case Management

COMMUNITY SAFETY SPACES

YMCA Y-time Thursday night engagement

Save the Children One Step Closer and Ignite Basketball

Friday and Saturday night engagement

Mission Australia Youth-at-Risk Project Friday and Saturday night engagement

2 AFSN are a unique partner in that they also take a holistic approach in their familiy support, and are capable of catering to all six operational components. The AFSN is listed under family support as this is the primary aim, which is achieved through holistic support.


50

APPENDIX 5: PARTICIPANT COLLABORATIVE ACTION PLAN

51

APPENDIX 6: PARTICIPANT SERVICES MAP


52

APPENDIX 7: PARTICIPANT PROGRESS SNAPSHOT

YOUTH INTERVENTION PARTNERSHIP MODEL€¦ · This version of the Youth Intervention Partnership...

Documents

Transcript of YOUTH INTERVENTION PARTNERSHIP MODEL€¦ · This version of the Youth Intervention Partnership...