Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:07 am
Time: 2:07 am
Results for juvenile resettlement
2 results foundAuthor: Bateman, Tim Title: Engaging Young People in Resettlement: Research Report Summary: One of the prerequisites of effective resettlement intervention with young people leaving custody is that they are fully engaged with the services provided to them. The evidence base in relation to the engagement of marginalised young people is relatively slim. This briefing reports on research undertaken by Beyond Youth Custody that aims to contribute to an understanding of effective engagement in a resettlement context. Details: London: Beyond Youth Custody, 2013. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2014 at: http://www.beyondyouthcustody.net/wp-content/uploads/Engaging-young-people-in-resettlement.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.beyondyouthcustody.net/wp-content/uploads/Engaging-young-people-in-resettlement.pdf Shelf Number: 133800 Keywords: Juvenile Aftercare Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Reentry (U.I.) Juvenile Resettlement |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Joint thematic inspection of resettlement services to children by Youth Offending Teams and partner agencies Summary: Context The inspection took place as the Government had just launched Transforming Youth Custody which includes plans for the improvement of resettlement work with children. The Youth Justice Board and the National Offender Management Service are tasked with taking these plans forward. The inspection This inspection was led by HMI Probation, in collaboration with partner inspectorates, in response to the findings from our mainstream inspection programme of youth offending work which suggested that services to children in custody and on release were not being delivered consistently well enough. The inspection focused on the journey and experience of the child. Their cases were tracked through the custodial period, their release and the initial phase out into the community. We talked to them and their parents/carers where possible and appropriate, about the things that made it easier for them to settle back into their community successfully and about what got in the way. We also talked to staff and managers within the Young Offender Institutions, the Secure Training Centres and Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) as well as chairs of the YOT management boards and senior managers from the organisations with oversight of this work throughout England. Overall findings The offending outcomes for many of the children whose cases we inspected were poor. Too many had been rearrested, charged or convicted of new offences within months, or even weeks, of being released. Other outcomes: accommodation, education, training or employment, substance misuse and/or physical or mental health was also poor for too many. Very often, the support to help these children to successfully stop offending and start new, law-abiding lives had not been good enough. Many of the children in our inspection were vulnerable to harm, either through their offending or from others. They led complicated and chaotic lives, often in very difficult circumstances. Much hard work was carried out in the custodial institutions but it was not linked to giving children the best chance to stop offending and make a new life. It did not meet the individual, and often complex, needs of the child frequently enough; it was restricted to what was routinely available within the institution, the provision of education and behaviour management. Key staff did not fully understand each other's roles, did not always value each other's input and did not always work together. Information sharing was inconsistent both within and between organisations. Sentence planning was not integrated across all internal services, did not always take account of previous assessments or individual need and was not genuinely linked to the community. Plans were not useful tools to drive progress; they were generic, wordy and unfocused. Planning meetings were ineffective and failed to properly engage children and their parents/carers. Over one-third of children were held over 50 miles from home. This impacted on the ability of parents/carers to visit and be involved in planning, as well as the processes for gaining accommodation and accessing constructive activities. At the custodial stage, work in the community was not proactive and in too many cases was largely about attending meetings in the institution rather than preparing for release. Sometimes, having meetings and putting plans on a database had become ends in themselves; children recognised that and had become frustrated and disengaged. The worst examples of this were the lack of suitable accommodation being considered early enough and the failure to organise appropriate, realistic education, training and employment provision or constructive activities at the point of release. These were the two main complaints from those to whom we spoke. Children did not understand why things were not in place when they had been in custody for months. Too often, children and their parents/carers were not involved or engaged to any meaningful extent in the plans for release. They were at best, merely aware of the plans and, at worst, kept in the dark. There was little preparation to help them cope with the impact of the child's release. While there are some promising local resettlement projects, resettlement work in the community often started too late. Resources and services were not in place soon enough before release, leaving the child insufficiently supported at the most crucial point. Too often, it did not take into account what had taken place in custody. Contingency planning for the period following release was almost non-existent and Release on Temporary Licence was not used to promote successful resettlement. We found that some children were released without any form of statutory supervision following recall. At every stage, we found that children were held to account for their behaviour. We did not see a corresponding rigour towards the agencies tasked with providing services to them, either inside or outside custody. Conversely, we saw some excellent work both in custody and in the community, and for a small number of children, this hard work had contributed to successful resettlement back into the community. Those children had not reoffended. They had been helped to find and maintain suitable accommodation, they were engaged in education, training or employment and they told us about how they had changed the way they thought about themselves and their future. They were determined to make a new start and to stop offending. As outlined in the foreword, there are a number of agencies and departments responsible for resettlement policy and strategy. Across England and Wales, no one individual or organisation is ultimately accountable for the improvement of resettlement outcomes, in particular the reduction in the high level of reoffending of children leaving custody. The Youth Justice Board and the National Offender Management Service are again planning to improve resettlement practice under the auspices of the Government's Transforming Youth Custody. Previous initiatives have failed to embed improvements in services to those leaving custody or substantially reduce their reoffending. Locally, we found that YOT management boards did not identify or analyse the specific needs of children leaving custody or look at the reasons for their failure to settle back into the community successfully. Nor were children's social care services and housing providers sufficiently engaged, or held to account, in relation to the resettlement needs of children. Details: Manchester, UK: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, 2015. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2015 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/03/Youth-Resettlement_report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/03/Youth-Resettlement_report.pdf Shelf Number: 135863 Keywords: AftercareJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationJuvenile ReentryJuvenile Resettlement |