Transcript Re-offending & Desistance

September 2008
Presentation
Re-offending &
Desistance
Troy Hutchinson
Information Manager
Luton Youth Offending Service
The brief/project:
 Project: Narrative based research project
analysing the patterns of desistance from
offending in Luton
 Super Goal: The reduction of re-offending in
Luton and achievement of national indicator
 The study aims to produce a coherent
performance management framework to
research the desistance of offending
behaviour, reflecting research & practice
management of LYOS around the principles of
‘What works’
2
Background
Forward
 One of the principal ‘outcome’ measures on the
effectiveness of YOS
 Measure is linked to public confidence in the
ability of Youth Justice agencies.
 Local Priority indicator under the LAA
 Measure tracks Re-offenders and frequency of
their behaviour across 4 Youth Justice tiers
 2008/09 ahead of CAA; streamlined
Performance framework culture, therefore of
more significance
4
(Background cont…)
 Traditionally high rates of Recidivism in
Borough
 Actual re-offending levels are focused on YJB
scored methodology
 Luton is consistently marked a ‘Red’ indicator
 Re-offending outcomes has therefore taken
on greater significance.
5
Governance/Accountability
 1998 Crime and Disorder act; introduced the
current multi-agency Youth Offending Teams
 Enshrining the principle to “prevent offending
and to Reduce Re-offending”
 2004 Children's Act; Every Child Matters
 Youth Justice Board
 Children’s Trust YOS standing partner
 Local authority Children Services
6
Scrutiny & Interests
Local
Criminal
Justice
Board
Local
Children’s
Safeguarding
Board
Children’s
Trust
Youth
Justice
Board
YOS
Management
Board
GO East
Re-offending
Outcome
LAA
Crime
Ministry of
& Disorder
Justice
Partnership DCSF
7
The Measure: National
Indicator 19






Random identification
Based on receipt of substantive outcome
Cohort based on 10-17 year olds
1-year tracking period
2008/09 introduction of quarterly reporting
Outcomes measured against 2005
Baseline
 5% Reduction target* (upto 2007/08)
8
Outcomes/How monitored:
 Method
 Context/Comparison:
 Outcomes based
 Quarterly Performance
Reporting
 YJB League Tables
Scored outcomes
 Traffic Lights
 Commentary
 Outcome justification
agenda





Luton Baseline
Reduction Target
Statistical Neighbours
Region
National outcomes
9
Current Outcomes
 Published Re-offending
(2007 Figures)
 Luton =32.8%
 National= 37.4%
 Luton was unable to
achieve its reduction
target of 30.4%
 Breakdown
 Re-offending outcomes
against 4 tiers
 Pre-Court= 20%
 First Tier=52%
 Community
Penalties=56%
 Custodial Licences=
50%
10
Planning
& Context
Signposts
 Theory
 Indicator-related/National policy
 Desistance
 Performance Management Culture
 Consultation:
 Focus Group
 Strategic Management
 Practitioners
 Emerging Agenda
 Priorities
12
The Traditional Debate






Numbers based (The Beast!)
YJB methodology
YOS specialism/Autonomy
Annual scrutiny
Its Luton it’s an industrial town
Blame:
 “the reason is…
 “it was a bad year”
 “Difficult cohort”
 “Staffing gaps”, “poor retention”
 “We don’t really know”
 The weather!
13
Performance Management
Culture
 Division between Strategic Management &
Operational Staff
 KPI’s,League Tables &Traffic Lights
 External commissioning (LBC trend)
 Practice focused
 Reactive fire-fighting
 Competing Interests: OBTJ/Compliance/Child
Welfare (Tensions!)
 “With time we would….”
 Recognition towards planning process
14
Practitioner:
I.T.??
Feed
YOIS
Intervention
Delivery
Priorities
Performance
Management
Understanding
of Role
ASSET
Desistance
RISK
MANAGEMENT
Child
Welfare
15
Management Team:
National
Indicators/
Risk
Effective KPI’s
Management
Practice
Statutory
Requirements
Governance
Performance
Management
Supervision
Duties
Commission
Programmes &
Resources
Defensible
Decision
Making
Practice
Ownership
focused
Policy &
Service
Delivery
16
Consultation Process
 Internal Focus Group
 Informal Interviews
 Service Questionnaires aimed at:
 Operational Management team
 Practitioners;
 Strategic Management
 Information/Performance Officers
17
Emerging Environment:
• Post-Inspection improvement agenda
• Integration of Local authority partnership
• 2008 Youth Crime Action Plan &
Strengthening of Children's Trust
• YJB handing power back to Local authority;
(YJPF sign-off, budgetary control)
• Children’s Services: PIP Agenda
• YOS Management board composition; New
Chair= Luton DCS
• Evidence based outcomes
• Diversity & Access to services
18
Emerging lines of enquiry:
• Re: The outcomes:
 “Why are you not achieving your targets? “Tell me
what you’re going to do about this”?
 “What are these outcomes against the BME
communities of the town”?
• Re: The young people:
 “Who are these young people and what are you doing
about them”
 How are we fulfilling Every Child Matters?
 “Who else is working with these young people and
their families, tell me what they are doing to help”
 “Tell me what is working”
19
What do we need to know?
 Effective practice
 Programme Delivery (Scrutiny of Intervention
plan)
 Use of Resources & Programme development
 Quality of Assessments & Risk Management
 Cross-cutting cohorts:
 Looked After Children
 BME representation; Which groups? What are
their needs? What are their profiles
 Service improvement?
 Evaluation feeding service planning
20
Analysing the Young person:
Length of
Case
Order
Asset Score
Manager
Other
Professional/
Agencies
Intervention
Plan
Type/Tier
Of Order
Access
to Service
Young
Person
Offence
Type
Exit
Strategy
Intervention
Events
Contextual
Features
Compliance
PreDiversity
Convictions
Outcomes
21
The Research
“For all information’s independence and
extent, it is people in their communities,
organisations and institutions, who
ultimately decide what it all means and why
it matters” Brown & Duguid (2000)
“The question is not simply “what works for
offenders as a whole?”, but “which
methods work for which type of offenders
and under what conditions or in what type
of settings?” Palmer (1975)‘Martinson
revisited’
23
*The Research & Analysis*
 Action Research Cohort 1: “How important was the
intervention to desistance” Jon Emanuel, YOS Case worker






Based on National Indicator Referral order cohort;
Cohort grouped by Asset Score
Pre-convictions
Gravity and Frequency of previous offending
Further Offending?
Practitioner judgement
 Cohort 2: Pre-Court subsets; comparing those with no
intervention to those with Final Warning programmes
 Cohort 3: PPO Deter Cohort; group of High risk
Offenders
 Cohort 4: YOS Girls Group/CIC/ Cohort; targetted for
commissioned Group work
24
Delivery
What form?
 YOS Action Planning of Resources
 Programme of targeted Data analysis
 GIS
 Statistical analysis
 Identification of future need/pressures
 Formulation of internal targets against specific
cohorts
25
Model/Scorecard
 Young
persons/Intervention
 Capture the full picture
of desistance
 Programme journey
 Offending behaviour,
pre/during/post
intervention
 Review
Young Person
Ima Tealeaf
Pre-Convictions
4
Assessment of
Risk
Medium
Legal Status
N/a
Re-Offending
Yes
Escalation
No
Gravity:
No
Compliance
Breach
Order outcome
Completion
26
Planning & Evaluation Model
Planning:
Acting:
1) The Problem
2) The existing agenda
3) Needs Analysis
1) Focus Group
2) Knowledge gathering
3) Practice sharing
Reflecting:
Observing:
1) Reporting
2) Presentation
3) Emerging Trends
4) Identification
1) The Research
2) Cohort identification
3) The outcomes
4) Data Analysis
Lewin’s Action
Research Model
27
Outcomes
Results








Role of the Pig (Genetic engineering)
Servicing the machine; LBC, LAA structures
Research & Indicators ‘fit for our purpose’
Enhanced knowledge and information
Evidence based research (incorporating ECM)
Youth Justice Planning Framework
Internal Framework & Evaluation
Improved profile of young offenders
29
Initial Conclusions
 Focused idealism (that seeks lofty goals but
also will inform & innovate but will be
serviceable)
 Wealth of knowledge
 Awareness of limitations; danger of overemphasising initial outcomes
 Over-empathy with workers (my own
Stockholm syndrome!)
 Where do I now stand on What works? Nothing
Works?
30
Next Steps
 Research & Synthesis
 Supervision Order Cohort/YRO
Implementation
 Research to be tabled for Service
Management team
 2009/10 Supporting evidence on YOS
research
 Lewin’s Model
31