Working with Young Offenders

Troubles of Youth 5.3.09.

Lecture Outline

• • • • Measuring Re-offending Risk Assessment and ASSET Cognitive Behavioural Programmes Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme

What do we mean by re-offending?

• • • • • • Re-conviction?

Court Appearances?

Breaches / Revoking Orders?

Same crime type?

Pre-court disposals?

Binary variable?

What do we mean by not re-offending?

• Reduction or Cessation of offending?

• Prolonging time until offending • Changed Behaviour and Attitudes?

Valid Comparisons

• • Central Question: e.g. comparison of re offending by disposal or over time Direct Comparison of rate problematic – Systematic differences in populations – These differences are important predictors of (re-)offending

Example: Age and expected rate of offending Expected increase +2 years Expected approx level +2 years Expected decrease +2 years 10 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 If comparison groups present different age profiles, there is an inbuilt bias to different levels of re-offending in the future, irrespective of disposal.

30

How to deal with systematic differences of populations?

• • • • (Methodological) Ideal: random allocation to disposals: Reality – unlikely Matched Pairs? Possible, if design allows Statistically: need to adjust re-offending rates to take into account of different population characteristics Copas and Marshall (1998) -> OGRS – Adjusted Re-offending Rates • Estimates from analysis of re-offending patterns, using CJ data used to produced adjusted rates for different disposals • Allow comparisons to be made having taken into account “relevant characteristics” • Are all characteristics taken into account?

Co-variants of Re-offending

Criminal Justice Variables:

Age; Sex; N (previous convictions); N (custodial sentences); Years since first conviction; Type of offence (i.e. OGRS Data)

Social Variables:

Drug and Alcohol Use; Accommodation; Employment; Financial Problems; Relationships (Parents; partners; peers)

More challenging to access Qualitative Variables:

“Turning Points”; Emotional / psychological preparedness to desist

Risk Assessment and ASSET

• • Standard Risk Assessment Tool use within the YJS / YOTs – identify the key factors contributing to offending by young people – provide a prediction of reconviction – help to identify young people who may present a risk of serious harm to others – identify situations in which a young offender is vulnerable to being harmed – identify issues where more in-depth assessment is required.

Parallels with OASys, parole decisions

Alternatives

• Clinical Assessment – Traditional approach offered by probation – Offers opportunity for qualitative / personal factors – Problems with Clinical Assessment • Biases • • Omission of relevant issues Variability of Practice • Inaccurate Predictions

What ASSET Does (1)

• ASSET Core Profile – Background Information and 12 domains addressing ‘dynamic criminogenic factors Living Arrangements Physical Health Family and Personal Relationships Education, training and Employment Neighbourhood Lifestyle Substance use Emotional and Mental Health Perception of self and others Thinking and Behaviour Attitudes to Offending Motivation to Change • Each domain scored 0-4 by practitioner: used as an • indicator of risk of offending Anything scored 2+ addressed in intervention plan

Accuracy of Prediction

67% Accuracy Source: Baker, K et al (2003) THE EVALUATION OF THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE YOUTH JUSTICE BOARD’S ASSESSMENT FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS, London: YJB • Intra-rater reliability • Individual raters shown to be consistent in how they rate •Inter-rater reliability • High level within YOTS: some inconsistencies between YOTs •Proposal: include “static” factors in score: improves accuracy of prediction and improved differentiation between score bands.

Cognitive Behavioural Projects

• What is C-B? A model for changing (offending) behaviour – Behavioural Therapy: • • Behaviour is driven by factors external to the individual (“ABC’s”) Behaviour is learnt – Cognitive Psychology: • Focussed on thoughts, emotions and understandings: these have to change before behaviour can – C-B • Combined empirical observation, the role of learning and gradual change (Behaviouralism) with self-reports, how subjects talked about crime, and the centrality of cognitive processes in self regulation (Cognitivism)

• •

What does CB Look like?

Tertiary crime prevention: a wide range of levels of seriousness, persistence and rime types Not a single unified theoretical approach: training using (combinations of): Moral Reassessing Victim Empathy Problem-solving Techniques Interaction Skills Self-management Self-esteem work Pro-social modelling Patterns and consequences of Offending Behaviour Values, beliefs and Thinking Peers and Assertion Relapse Prevention

• • • •

Evaluating C-B

Willingness to engage and motivation to change Literacy levels, maturity and level of understanding of participants Programme Integrity – Cohorts: rolling or closed-entry – Group Dynamics – Dosage: Completion and Attendance Rates – Consistency of Delivery: discretion and accountability Offender focussed

Eadie, T and Cantor, R (2002) “Practising in a Context of Ambivalence: The Challenge for Youth Justice Workers” Youth Justice; 2; 14

• •

Intensive Surveillance and Supervision Programme (ISSP)

Intensive community programme for repeat or serious offenders : est. 2001 – (charged/warned/convicted 4+ dates within year, and received one community or custodial penalty) Aims: – Reduce re-offending and the seriousness of re-offending – Reduce use of custody – Tackle underlying problems: a particular emphasis on educational needs – Demonstrate consistency and rigour: reassure the community and sentencers of their credibility and likely success.

What is an ISSP?

• • • Most rigorous non-custodial sentence: a ‘specified activity’ on Supervision Order Six months: intensive supervision (25 hours per week) for first 3 months, thereafter reduced supervision (5 hours per week) Types of surveillance (2 checks a day up to 24 hour monitoring) – Tracking – Tagging – Voice verification – Intelligence-led policing

Impact of ISSPs

• • • • 41 Pilot Schemes Reduction of Use of Custody?

– April 2000 -> Dec 2004: 2.1% reduction nationally: no particular effect in pilot areas – Some diversion from custody: also some net-widening Breaches – 31% breach rate -> 29% of whom then received custody Reconviction?

– Expected reconviction = 79% – Actual Reconviction = 89% – ‘Non-Completion’ a significant predictor of reconviction

The impact of ISSP upon the use of custody

10 9 4 1 0 3 2 6 5 8 7 Apr 00 - Sept 01 Oct 01 - Sept 02 Oct 02 - Sep 03 Oct 03 - Dec 04 Scheme Phase 1/2 Scheme Phase 3 Scheme Phase 4

The impact of ISSP upon the use of other community disposals

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

April 00 Sep 01 Oct 01 - Sep 02 Oct 02 - Sep 03 Oct 03 - Dec 04 Custody ISSP Community penalties First tier