Transcript Title Subtitle X Month 2010

Police Crime Commissioners: the case for
funding youth crime prevention work through
local Youth Offending Teams
Youth Justice Board
July 2012
Page 1
Contents
Context and summary of achievements
The research case for prevention, early intervention and family support
The business and value for money case
Achievements in the youth justice system
Page 2
Police Crime Commissioners : why invest in targeted prevention and
early intervention through local Youth Offending Teams
Sustaining delivery in targeted youth crime prevention
Youth offending teams and their delivery partners may want to ensure funding for targeted
youth crime prevention services in their local areas can continue to operate under these
new funding arrangements, by making the case for continued investment in this crucial
area.
This information pack is intended to help YOTs and their partners develop a business case
to take to PCCs, once elected, to try and secure funding for targeted prevention and early
intervention by highlighting its research and evidence base, sound financial and value for
money case, and the contribution they have made to the positive results we are seeing
across the youth justice system.
Please contact the Youth Justice Board for any further information that may be of assistance
Page 3
The YJ system is a success story
Since the peak in 2006/07 national figures show:
• Youth crime (proven offences) is down by 40%;
• Numbers of under 18s first time entrants coming into the youth
justice system down by 59%; and
• The average under 18 custody population has fallen by 30%.
Page 4
Local Success
Local figures for this police force area show –
• Youth crime (proven offences) is down by ?%;
• Numbers of under 18s first time entrants coming into the youth justice
system down by ?%; and
• The average under 18 custody population has fallen by ?%.
Page 5
Local Youth Offending Teams (YOTS)
• The information detailing the success story is attributed to YOT’s being at the
forefront of delivery, complimented by solid partnership working arrangements;
resulting in the successes at a local level.
• YOT's are one of many statutory organisations (including the police) with a legal
responsibility to prevent offending and reduce re-offending.
• Overseen by a management board, usually chaired by a senior official within the
local authority. It is the duty of every local authority, acting with partner agencies,
to set up one or more YOT teams for their area, or for two or more local authorities
acting together to establish one or more YOTs. S39(5) of the C&D Act 1998 sets
out the required minimum membership of each team.
• The YJB has worked with YOTs to develop a wide range of evidence-based
youth-crime prevention programmes, alongside national and local partners such
as the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), local authorities, charities and
the voluntary sector.
• Youth Justice services were at the forefront of addressing the youth crime
committed during last years disturbances.
Page 6
Local Youth Offending Teams (YOTS).. cont….
• Police and Crime Commissioners have a duty to co-operate with other
organisations “so as to provide an efficient and effective criminal justice system for
the police area” (Section 10 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act
2011). Youth offending teams are included in this duty to co-operate.
• YOT funding currently comes from a range of sources
•About 30 to 40% of YOT grant comes from the YJB with the remainder being
received from local agencies, including the local authority and the police.
•PCC investment may attract further funding from other sources
• Each YOT management board identifies local priorities and the level of funding
for each. They are also able to commission services to reduce and prevent youth
crime and antisocial behaviour.
• Funding from Police Crime Commissioners will be vital to maintain service
delivery and ensure the successful outcomes of YOTs continues.
Page 7
YOTs in this Police area
YOTs may want to include a brief description here – this could include (not
exhaustive) : • YOT set up in this area
• Differing demographics
• A story of the journey on service developments/challenges/successes and
maintenance alongside police colleagues on the ground and strategically
Page 8
Targeted prevention programmes: their history and
evidence base
• Youth Crime Prevention work has been supported in the past by Home Office
funding (routed through the YJB) and has seen the development of a number of
evidence based programmes.
• These include
• Youth Inclusion Support Panels,
• Youth Inclusion Programmes &
• Family Intervention Programmes
Page 9
Targeted prevention programmes: their history and evidence base… Cont…..
Youth Inclusion Support Panels - YISPs
Multi agency planning groups that offer early intervention
based on assessed risk and need. Parenting support in the
form of contracts and programmes is offered as part of a range
of tailored interventions. YISPs aim to prevent anti social
behaviour and offending by those at high risk.
Youth Inclusion Programmes; YIPs
YIPs operate in the most deprived/high crime neighbourhoods
with the aim to reducing crime and anti social behaviour.
Identification of at risk young people is through different
agencies including police, local authorities, schools etc
Many targeted prevention programmes are delivered by the
Voluntary, Community & Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector.
Approximately 50% of YIPs in England and Wales are delivered by
the VCSE sector.
Many of these are small, community-based organisations who have
built up prevention networks in their regions over time.
There are many positive examples of prevention programme
‘success stories’ – as the following case studies illustrate:
Family Intervention Programmes - FIPs
YOTs have also contributed to the growth of family intervention
programmes (FIPs) in England.
Troubled Families
To add to the success and continued work delivered by the
above, a new Governemnt initiative has been rolled out deal
with “Troubled families”. There are estimated to be 120,000
most troubled families in England and recent data estimated
that £9 billion is spent on them equating to £78, 000 per
family.These familes can have serious problems leading to
crime and disorder which usually includes; unemployed
parents and children not in school. Governemnt investment in
this new initiative should deliver longer term reductions in all
elements affecting these families.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/communities/troubledfamilies
Page 10
Context and current provision
The research case for prevention, early intervention and family support
The business and value for money case
Achievements in the youth justice system
Page 11
The factors associated with the onset of offending are well established and
evidence-based
FAMILY
They can be grouped under four ‘domains’
•Poor parental supervision and discipline
•Conflict
•History of criminal activity
•Parental attitudes that condone anti-social and
criminal behaviour
•Low income
•Poor housing
The impact of family and/or parenting factors on a young
person’s likelihood of offending is also well established
Factors which can impact upon offending risk include;
• Having a criminal or anti-social parent/s
• Overcrowding and/or large family size
For further information
see Risk and
Protective Factors
(YJB, 2005)
COMMUNITY
•Low achievement beginning in primary school
•Aggressive behaviour (including bullying)
•Lack of commitment (including truancy)
•School disorganisation
•Living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood
• Disorganisation and neglect
• Availability of drugs
• High population turnover, and lack of
neighbourhood attachment
PERSONAL
SCHOOL
• Consistency and warmth of parenting and parenting skills
• Hyperactivity and impulsivity
• Low intelligence and cognitive impairment
• Alienation and lack of social commitment
• Attitudes that condone offending and drug misuse
• Early involvement in crime and drug misuse
• Friendships with peers involved in crime and drug
• Substance misuse
http://www.yjb.gov.uk/P
ublications/Scripts/prod
View.asp?idproduct=24
6&eP
Where these factors ‘cluster’ in a young person’s life their
likelihood of offending increases
• Abuse or neglect, family conflict and disruption, financial
hardship, substance misuse
‘It is clear that many family factors predict
offending, but less clear what are the causes
or key underlying family dimensions that
should be measured or targeted in prevention
programmes’” Farrington and Welsh, Saving
Children from a Life of Crime, 2007
For further information, see
Impact of Family Breakdown on Children’s Well-being:
http://publications.education.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/DCSF-RR113.pdf
Families At Risk Review:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080107205404/http://www.cabinetof
fice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force/families_at_risk.aspx
Page 12
Evidence-based, targeted prevention programmes delivered to young people
at risk of offending have been proven to be effective
Benefits include;
• Reducing the number of young people entering the criminal justice system and embarking on a life of crime into
adulthood.
• Reducing early reoffending (YIPs typically include in their core group around 1/3 of young people who have already
entered the CJS)
• Reducing anti-social behaviour using a tiered approach
• Improving the quality of life in deprived communities and reducing victimisation
These positive outcomes are supported by a growing body of research that have reported positive findings for YJB-funded
prevention programmes
Youth Inclusion Programme: The independent YIP evaluation found YP engaged by the programme had lower arrest
rates than those not engaged. Phase 2 of the evaluation found an 82% engagement level among the ‘core 50’ young
people, whose arrest rates fell by 66%
See http://www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=473&eP=
Safer School Partnership: The 2005 University of York SSP evaluation found absence rates in the 15 ‘intervention’ schools
fell significantly relative to the comparison schools, and reported evidence that victimisation outcomes improved in the
intervention schools. A further University of York study compared 300 SSP schools with 1,000 ‘like’ schools and found the
SSP schools were displaying greater-than-average rises in attainment and significantly reduced truancy rates.
See http://www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=269&eP=
The 2004 Audit Commission review of the youth justice system reported YJB-developed targeted programmes “have
proved to be an effective way to target limited resources to those most at risk.” (Audit Commission, Youth Justice 2004)
The Home Affairs Select Committee have recommended Government “continues to fund Youth Inclusion Programmes as
a means of reducing youth crime.” (Home Affairs Select Committee Seventh Report of 2008/09 )
Page 13
There is continuing growth in the research and evidence base for investing
in targeted youth crime prevention which proved it works.
In an independent report it clearly supported the
approach of targeting services at high and medium
risk offenders rather than having universal access.
The Policy Exchange think tank has identified 10
programmes that are proven, after rigorous
evaluation, to have significant impact on future
offending as well as being cost-effective.
The Youth Inclusion Programme is identified as
one of these programmes.
Ten effective crime prevention programmes
0-3 years
Family Nurse
Partnership
3-6 years
8-13 years
Olweus Bullying Prevention
Triple P
Perry Pre-school
13-18 years
Functional
Family Therapy
Mentoring
Intensive Fostering
Youth Inclusion
Programme
Life Skills training
Multi-systemic
therapy
Common features identified in these effective programmes are
that they;
* Reproduced from Less Crime, Lower Costs, Policy Exchange, 2009
• Focus on the risk factors that increase the likelihood of
offending behaviour
Functional Family Therapy (FFT), Intensive Fostering, Mentoring,
Nurse Family Partnerships, and Multi-systemic Therapy (MST)
have also been, or are currently, available in parts of England
and Wales
• Work in community rather than custodial settings as much as
possible
• Focus on the offender’s specific behavioural and skills needs,
taking into account gender, age, ethnicity and cultural identity
• Involve many agencies in order to offer the offender a range
of opportunities for personal, social, economic and anti-social
behaviour
• Target high and medium-risk offenders than being universal
• Demonstrate ‘programme integrity’ i.e. establish aims,
methods, resources, staff training, support, monitoring and
evaluation that are integrated and consistent
Targeted programmes which deliver services to at-risk young
people are widespread and firmly embedded in the youth
justice landscape in England and Wales. Their impact and
effectiveness has been recognised by a number of leading
organisations.
* Less Crime, Lower Costs, Policy Exchange, 2009
Page 14
The sound financial case for investing in targeted prevention programmes
can also be made
The sound financial case for investing in targeted prevention
programmes has also been made by a number of
independent bodies who have identified potential savings;
Many US ‘model’ programmes have been rigorously
evaluated and shown to have significant impact on offending,
as well as being cost-effective. These include;
• A 2004 Audit Commission report found that £100 million
could be saved if just one in ten young people sentenced to
custody were dealt with through prevention and early
intervention measures (Audit Commission, 2004)
• Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme
• The Home Affairs Select Committee have argued that a
young person who shows behavioural problems by age 5
and is dealt with through the criminal justice system costs
over £200,000 by age 16, while one given support to stay out
costs just £50,000 (Home Affairs Select Committee,
2009/10)
• Big Brothers Big Sisters of America
There is evidence that taking a ‘whole family’ approach,
rather than working with individuals in isolation, can be more
effective for some young people and their families including
cost avoidance savings of £2.50 per £1 spent on intervention
(DfE RR046 2010)
Further information to
support the case
for targeted programmes
can be found at:
• Functional Family Therapy
• The Incredible Years
• Nurse Family Partnerships
• Life Skills Training
For further information
about these programmes
see University of Colorado
‘blueprints’ at
http://www.colorado.edu/cs
pv/blueprints/
• Midwestern Prevention Project
The current prevention landscape is therefore based on
good evidence about ‘what works’….and we know
similar US programmes have yielded extremely positive
results
•YIP evaluation: http://www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=473&eP=
•Key Elements of Effective Practice guidance series:
http://www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Scripts/prodList.asp?idCategory=32&eP=
•Children’s Workforce Development Council Commissioning toolkit:
http://www.cwdcouncil.org.uk/working-with-parents-and-families/commissioning-toolkit
Page 15
The health and well-being needs of children and young people tend to be
particularly severe by the time they are at risk of receiving a community sentence
and even more so when they receive a custodial sentence
We know from the latest available evidence[1] about children and young people in the YJS that:
Over 75%
• have a history of temporary or permanent school exclusion (custody)
• have serious difficulties with literacy and numeracy (custody)
Over 50%
• have difficulties with speech, language and communication (custody)
• have problems with peer and family relationships (community and custody)
• of young people who commit an offence have been a victim of crime – twice the rate for non-offenders
Over 33%
• have a diagnosed mental health disorder (custody)
• of those accessing substance misuse services are from the YJS (community and custody)
• have been looked after (custody)
• have experienced homelessness (custody)
Over 25%
• of young men in custody (and a third of young women) report a long-standing physical complaint
• have a learning disability (community and custody)
A high proportion
• of children from black and minority ethnic (BME) groups, compared with others, have post-traumatic stress disorder
(community and custody)
• have experienced bereavement and loss through death and family breakdown (community and custody)
Parental Offending
• approximately 200,000 children had a parent in prison at some point in 2009 [2]
[1] Healthy Children, Safer Communities, HM Government, 2009
[2] Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction study, Ministry of Justice, March 2012
Page 16
Why should PCCs consider health in prevention
investment?
• Those most vulnerable to entering the YJS are also more vulnerable to having
unmet health needs, substance misuse etc.
• YOTs are skilled in assessing and identifying those at risk of poor outcomes.
• Investment contributes to the complex families agenda.
• Targeted prevention work not only prevents escalation of health related risk
and harm but also leads to reductions in anti-social behaviour, offending and
reoffending‘
• It would be prudent to ensure services being commissioned by PCCs and
health (ie. Via Clinical Commissioning Groups) are suitably aligned to avoid
duplication and ensure continuity of care before, during and after an individual
comes into contact with the YJS
• A key link is the Director of Children’s Services who has representation on both
the local Community Safety Partnership (CSP) and the Health and Wellbeing
Board (HWB)
Page 17
Context and current provision
The research case for prevention, early intervention and family support
The business and value for money case
Achievements in the youth justice system
Page 18
The total costs of responding to youth crime are estimated at between
£4billion and £11billion annually. There is therefore a potentially huge costbenefit to effective youth crime prevention.
Recent studies have calculated the total costs of
responding to youth crime at between £4billion* and
£11billion** annually
See The public costs of youth crime, Independent Commission on
Youth Crime and Anti-social behaviour, 2010
www.youthcrimecommission.org.uk
Over £2 billion is invested in early intervention. However,
much less – around £160 million – is estimated to be spent
annually on programmes whose main remit is to reduce youth
crime.
Compared to the very high costs of correctional services, a
strong case exists to invest much more.
Annual cost equivalents per person per year, £
219,000
200,000
185,000
150,000
100,000
59,000
50,000
Home Office research places the (largely administrative)
costs of crime at
•£500 for every episode of criminal damage
•£5,000 for car theft
For further information see Home Office research The Economic and
Social Costs of Crime
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors217.pdf
* Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Anti-social Behaviour, 2010
** National Audit Office, 2010
17,000
1,333
1,920
0
Youth Inclusion Youth Inclusion
and Support
Programme*
Panel*
Intensive
Supervision
and
Surveillance
Programme
Young
offender
institution
Secure
Training
Centre
Secure
Children's
Home
*estimated figures based on the number of young people expected to be reached by the
programmes each year
Page 19
The cost-effectiveness of UK-based prevention programmes is less well
known and difficult to establish – but collectively the available evidence
makes a compelling case for investment
It has been estimated that approximately 78,000 young
people are reached each year by the main interventions*
targeted at young people at risk of offending …with a
further 15,000 estimated to be referred on to support
services through street-based initiatives
•Prevention programmes range in cost, with the most
intensive interventions inevitably requiring substantial
investment.
•However there is a large body of, largely, US-based
evidence which suggests they can result in significant costbenefits.
•There is less evidence to support the cost-benefits of UKbased preventions programmes. However we know that the
per capita cost of engaging young people at high risk of
offending on a YIP has been identified as £2,584 over the 3
year Phase 2 evaluation period.**
In addition, a 2009 Policy Exchange report supported the
cost-benefit case for investing in prevention.
The report concluded that
“investing in evidence-based programmes {like these}
is the key to reducing the number of victims and
improving public safety while simultaneously
managing the spiralling cost of our growing prison
population”
and that,
“the merit and value of early prevention is sometimes
overlooked because the full rewards are not realised
for many years.”
For further information see Policy Exchange, Less
Crime, Lower Costs, 2009
*Youth Inclusion Programmes, Youth Inclusion and Support Panels, YOT parenting
interventions, YCAP Family Intervention Projects, Intensive Intervention Projects, Challenge
and Support
** The per capita cost of the core group was £2,584 and the per capita cost of the wider
group was £1,202. While these per capita cost analyses do not give an indication of cost
benefit or cost effectiveness, they do give an estimate of how the money was spread over
the number of young people who were engaged by the programme
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/publicat
ion.cgi?id=116
Page 20
The latest estimates of savings for each £ spent on youth justice interventions sees
prevention programmes feature prominently amongst the interventions with the
highest, most reliable returns
The YJB, in partnership with Birmingham City Council and
the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, have
sponsored the work of the Social Research Unit at
Dartington in identifying the youth justice interventions that
are effective in reducing crime whilst also producing a
return on investment.
In the first batch of programmes to be analysed for impact
and cost effectiveness, the top three interventions (when all
things are taken into account) are all prevention
programmes: Functional Family Therapy, Multidimensional
Treatment Foster Care, and Multisystemic Therapy.
For further information see the Social Research Unit: Investing in Children –Youth Justice v1.1
http://www.dartington.org.uk/sites/default/files/Youth_Justice%20report.pdf
Page 21
Context and current provision
The research case for prevention, early intervention and family support
The business and value for money case
Achievements in the youth justice system
Page 22
Targeted youth crime prevention is contributing towards the positive results
we are seeing across the youth justice system
• The number of young people entering the criminal justice system for the first time (first time entrants, FTEs) has shown
significant and sustained reductions in recent years.
• In 2009/10 the number of young people receiving their first reprimand, warning or conviction in England and Wales fell by 23%
from 2008/09, from 79,851 to 61,422.
• This sustained fall in FTEs is likely to be due to a combination of factors, including the expansion of, and investment in,
successful targeted prevention programmes.
Number of young people aged 10-17 receiving their first reprimand, warning or conviction
(including and excluding PNDs) living in England, 2000-01 to 2009-10
YJB-funded targeted prevention programmes are
contributing to national reductions in FTEs.
Recent analysis of data provided to the YJB in
2009/10 shows that 11% of a cohort of young people
engaged by prevention programmes subsequently
became FTE in the 12 months following their
engagement, a 13% reduction from the 2007
baseline
Page 23
Sustained efforts to prevent young people from entering the criminal justice
system are also contributing to other positive outcomes
There have been positive reductions in the number of
young people in custody in recent years.
The average number of young people (under 18) in
custody has shown very encouraging results, falling by
around 19% from the peak of 3,029 in 2002/03 to 2,444 in
2009/10
Youth reoffending has also fallen – latest available data
(2008) shows that since 2000 the proportion of offenders
who reoffended within 12 months (actual rate) has fallen
from 40.2% to 37.3%.
The frequency of reoffending (number of offences per 100
offenders) has also fallen from 151.4 to 113.9, a fall of
24.8%
Frequency of reoffending (per 100 offenders)
Chart 3. Average Secure Estate for Children and Young People
Population, 2000/01 - 2010/11*
3,600
3,400
3,200
3,000
2,800
2,600
2,400
2,200
2,000
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
Average Secure Estate Custody Population (under 18's)
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09 2009/10* 2010/11**
Average Secure Estate Custody Population (inc 18 year olds)
* Provisional data
** This shows the average for provisional data for the period April 2010
to August 2010.
The number of offences per 100 offenders that were
classified as most serious (severe) has fallen 7.4 per cent
Page 24
from 0.91 to 0.84 offences since 2000