Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:08 pm
Time: 12:08 pm
Results for juvenile offenders (u.k.)
62 results foundAuthor: CRG Research Title: An Evaluation of Summer Plus: A Cross Departmental Approach to Preventing Youth Crime Summary: Summer Plus 2002 was a behavior improvement program aimed at young people in the U.K. This report presents the findings of a small scale, qualitative study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the program in reducing street crime in 34 Local Education Authority (LEA) areas across England. Details: Annesley, UK: DfES Publications, 2003. 39p., app. Source: Research Report; no. 392 Year: 2003 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 113781 Keywords: Crime PreventionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Street Crime |
Author: Great Britain. Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection Title: Actions Speak Louder: A Second Review of Healthcare in the Community for Young People Who Offend Summary: This inspection looks at the specific and significant contributions made by healthcare organizations toward the effective assessment of the health needs of children and young people who offend. It found that insufficient progress has been made in many key elements over the course of this cycle of inspections, and following a previous review report. Details: London: Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2009. 44p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 114829 Keywords: Health Care (Young Offenders)Juvenile Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Chambers, Max Title: Arrested Development: Reducing the Number of Young People in Custody While Reducing Crime Summary: This think tank report recommends that local authorities in the U.K. should pay the bill for youth custody places, thereby removing the existing perverse incentive in the system. At present, local authorities have a financial disincentive to keep young people out of prison. Youth custody is funded centrally, meaning that when young people are imprisoned, they are taken out of local agencies' caseloads and budgets. The report makes a number of recommendations to refocus efforts and budgets on keeping young people out of prison in the first place through crime prevention strategies. The report highlights the potential for a significant reduction in the youth custodial population through reduced youth crime. Details: London: Policy Exchange, 2009. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/arrested-development-jul-09.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/arrested-development-jul-09.pdf Shelf Number: 117102 Keywords: Crime Prevention (U.K.)Juvenile Detention (U.K.)Juvenile Justice Systems (U.K.)Juvenile Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Hart, Di Title: Children and Young People in 'Breach': A Scoping Report on Policy and Practice in the Enforcement of Criminal Justice and Anti-Social Behaviour Orders Summary: This report summarizes the findings of the first phase of a project concerning young people who are in 'breach' of their bail requirements, or anti-social behavior or criminal justice order. The project aims to increase the understanding of policy and practice in different aspects of breach proceedings. A particular focus is the population of children and young people who are in custody as a result of breach, particularly where this is the main reason for their incarceration. Details: London: National Children's Bureau, 2010. 37p. Source: Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118531 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Bail, U.K.Juvenile Justice System (U.K.)Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Young Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Halsey, Karen Title: Evaluation of the Children in Trouble Programme Summary: The Children in Trouble program is a joint project supported by the Local Government Association and the Howard League for Penal Reform and sets out to encourage, develop and showcase different approaches to reducing the use of custodial sentences for young people. The three approaches included: (1) a floating accommodation support service; (2) restorative justice; and (3) a custody panel (and fusion fostering). This evaluation documents the program's achievements and challenges through interviews with project staff, key partners and young people. These findings and the wider issues associated with the use of custody for young people are discussed in detail. Details: London: Local Government Association, 2010. 36p. Source: Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118532 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Juvenile Detention (U.K.)Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Restorative Justice (U.K.) |
Author: Great Britain. Department for Children, Schools and Families Title: Safeguarding the Future: A Review of the Youth Justice Board's Governance and Operating Arrangements Summary: This report examines the role, relationships, powers and levers of the U.K. Youth Justice Board. It looks at the role the Youth Justice Board plays in delivering public protection and confidence, and its role in securing accommodation for offenders. It also outlines a series of recommendations for reducing youth crime while reducing costs. Details: London: Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2010. 118p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118613 Keywords: Juvenile Detention (U.K.)Juvenile Justice (U.K.)Juvenile Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Great Britain. Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) Title: Transition Through Detention and Custody: Arrangements for Learning and Skills for Young People in Custodial or Secure Settings Summary: This report evaluates the range and effectiveness of the arrangements for education and training for several categories of young people in the UK: those identified for their likelihood of offending; young offenders who move into custodial establishments then are transferred between different establishments while in custody; and those who move between custody and the community. The report illustrates good practice and makes recommendations for improvement. Details: Manchester, UK: Ofsted, 2010. 34p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118621 Keywords: Education, Juvenile OffendersJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Rehabilitation, Juvenile OffendersVocational Training, Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Matrix Evidence Title: Economic Analysis of Interventions for Young Adult Offenders Summary: This report summarizes an economic analysis of alternative interventions for young adult offenders. The report makes the case for a wholesale shift in the way the U.K. government works with young adults in, and at risk of becoming involved with, the criminal justice system. This shift requires more than tinkering around the edges of the system. Instead, it asks for a cross-departmental, in-depth look at vulnerable young people aged 18 to 24 involved in the criminal justice system, and a commitment to finding effective ways of working with these young adults in trouble to help them move away from crime. Details: London: Matrix Evidence, 2009. 29p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119154 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationCosts of Criminal JusticeEconomic AnalysisJuvenile Justice System (U.K.)Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Young Adult Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Garside, Richard Title: From Criminal Justice to Social Justice: Rethinking Approaches to Young Adults Subject to Criminal Justice Control Summary: This brief paper argues for increasing the number of interventions with young adults in the U.K. that place social justice, not criminal justice, at their core. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College London, 2010. 22p. Source: Internet Resource; Transition to Adulthood, No. 3 Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119272 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile Justice Policy (U.K.)Juvenile Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Garside, Richard Title: Risky People or Risky Societies? Rethinking Interventions for Young Adults in Transition Summary: This brief paper critiques policies informed by risk factor analysis that seek to prevent crime by intervening early in the lives of troubled children. It also proposes a different way to think about risk as a social force rather than an individual pathology. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College London, 2009. 16p. Source: Internet Resource; Transition to Adulthood, No. 1 Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119271 Keywords: Juvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Lobley, David Title: Working with Persistent Juvenile Offenders: An Evaluation of the Apex CueTen Project Summary: The CueTen project for persistent juvenile offenders was established in Glenrothes in October 1995, with funding for 3 years from The Scottish Office. Managed by Apex Scotland, it aimed to reduce offending by changing young people's attitudes to training and employment. The principal objectives of the CueTen programme were to develop employment-related skills and to introduce persistent juvenile offenders to the world of work and further training. These were to be pursued over a 26-week programme, the first half based in the project, the second half providing increasing opportunities for the independent exercise of the skills acquired. Main Findings include: The CueTen project worked with 86 young people in total (73 young men and 13 young women) and largely succeeded in working with its intended target group of the most persistent juvenile offenders in Fife; Seventy of the young people were aged 15 when they started at CueTen, and the rest were almost 15; Sixty-nine (80%) of the young people had been charged with crimes of dishonesty, 47 (55%) with miscellaneous offences, mostly minor assaults and public order offences, and 46 (53%) with offences of fire-raising and vandalism; These 3 offence categories accounted for about 87% of all charges against the young people in the year before they started at CueTen; The 26-week programme at CueTen proved too demanding for many of the young people; Fifty-five per cent completed the first block of 13 weeks, and only 40% completed the entire programme; Twenty were excluded from the project for violence, drug use, or seriously disruptive behaviour; Another 26 stopped attending for other reasons, usually associated with difficulties in their home lives; Those who completed the programme tended to be those who had been charged less frequently during the previous 12 months; Only one of the 12 young people with more than 15 charges in the previous year completed the programme and 13 of the 24 who completed the programme had 5 or fewer charges in this period; The offending records of the group who completed the programme showed more improvement in the 12 months after starting at CueTen than the records of the group who failed to complete and of a comparison group (N=39); The difference was not statistically significant; There were indications that the subsequent offences committed by the group who completed the programme were less serious than those committed by the other 2 groups; CueTen did not deliver an overall cost-saving to the criminal justice or child care systems during the 3 years covered by the evaluation, but this does not mean that it was less cost-effective than other interventions; and It is likely that the project produced modest long-term savings, through diverting young people from adult criminal careers. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Office Central Research Unit, 1999. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 21, 2011 at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/156722/0042127.pdf Year: 1999 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/156722/0042127.pdf Shelf Number: 120834 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)RecidivismRehabilitationRepeat Offenders |
Author: Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behavior Title: Time for a New Hearing: A Comparative Study of Alternative Criminal Proceedings for Children and Young People Summary: Time for a new hearing is the report from a comparative examination of alternative youth justice hearings and systems in the United Kingdom and other parts of the world. It concludes that the mainstream use of restorative justice in England and Wales, based on the youth conferencing system in Northern Ireland, would be likely to reduce reoffending, improve victims’ confidence and result in considerable savings in court time and the costs of custody. Details: London: The Police Foundation, 2010. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2011 at: http://www.youthcrimecommission.org.uk/attachments/095_PF%20Time%20for%20a%20New%20Hearing%20Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.youthcrimecommission.org.uk/attachments/095_PF%20Time%20for%20a%20New%20Hearing%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 120880 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Restorative Justice |
Author: Smallridge, Peter Title: Report on Implementing the Independent Review of Restraint in Juvenile Secure Settings Summary: This presents a progress report on how the U.K. government has implemented the recommendations from the Independent Review of Restraint in Juvenile Secure Settings from 2008. It is based upon observations over the two year monitoring period. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2011. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/report-implement-review-restraint-juvenile-secure-settings.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/report-implement-review-restraint-juvenile-secure-settings.pdf Shelf Number: 121040 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Secure Detention Centers |
Author: Glover, Jane Title: No Fixed Abode: The Housing Struggle for Young People Leaving Custody in England Summary: The last 10 years have seen a welcome decrease in the numbers of young people entering the youth justice system and those being held in youth custody in England. However, despite significant investment, resettlement remains an intractable problem and reoffending rates are shockingly high, at 74 per cent. Research shows that having suitable accommodation arrangements in place significantly reduces the risk of reoffending. The previous Government’s Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) reported that stable accommodation can reduce offending by as much as 20 percent. Barnardo’s experience of providing floating support and supported accommodation for homeless young people, including those leaving custody, has convinced us that having the right level of support at the right time is crucial to ensuring adherence to the terms of a community licence, engaging with education and training, and accessing vital support services. Accommodation was one of the top five issues of concern for young people using Barnardo’s advocacy service inside the secure estate in 2009-10, so this research set out to examine the realities of accommodation and support for young people leaving custody and whether adaptations to statutory guidance in recent years have had any impact. We also calculated the savings that can be made if a young person is well supported on their release from custody. The report documents the journeys of five young people – Liam, Daniel, Amy, Chris and Robbie as they prepare for release and move into the community. Their stories, backed up by research interviews with professionals from the community and the secure estate, demonstrate how gaps in provision during the crucial transition from custody to the community can significantly hamper a young person’s ability to get their life back on track. This results in a costly cycle of unsuitable accommodation and offending that could have been averted. Details: Ilford, UK: Barnardo's, 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2011 at: http://www.barnardos.org.uk/no_fixed_abode_february_2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.barnardos.org.uk/no_fixed_abode_february_2011.pdf Shelf Number: 121142 Keywords: HousingJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Reentry |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Core Case Inspections of Youth Offending Work: Aggregate Findings Across Four English Regions and Wales, Including Findings by Diversity Summary: This report provides aggregate findings across four English regions and Wales from HMI Probation’s Core Case Inspections (CCI) of key aspects of Youth Offending work by Youth Offending Teams, which are covering all 157 YOTs over a three year period from April 2009. The findings in this report cover the 79 YOT areas inspected so far. • Overall, these findings indicate that much sound work is being undertaken with young people who have offended, but that there is scope for further improvement, among other things in Public Protection work, in a number of YOTs. • On the main elements of work inspected in the CCI – Safeguarding and Public Protection: - the overall average percentage of Safeguarding work, that HMI Probation judged to have met a sufficiently high level of quality, was 67% - the overall average percentage of work to keep to a minimum each young person’s Risk of Harm to others, that HMI Probation judged to have met a sufficiently high level of quality, was 62% - the overall average percentage of work to make it less likely that the individual young person would reoffend, that HMI Probation judged to have met a sufficiently high level of quality, was 70% • In 88% of the cases the YOT worker actively motivated and supported the young person throughout the sentence. • In 73% of cases delivered interventions in the community were of good quality. In only 55% of all cases were they reviewed appropriately. • In 64% of cases where the young person did not comply with the supervision the authority took enforcement action sufficiently well. • When analysed by diversity characteristics, for the main elements of work overall, and for the majority of key specific aspects of work, there were no statistically significant differences. However, where there were differences, work was done sufficiently well: - with girls and young women somewhat more often than with boys and young men - on some aspects of work, including some on Risk of Harm, a little more often with white young people compared to black and minority ethnic (BME) young people - with individuals under 16 years of age somewhat more often than with the older age group - with individuals with no identified disability somewhat more often than those with an identified disability • Overall, there were no major differences in the quality of work between children and young people of different diversity characteristics, but the figures indicate that certain specific matters may require attention. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2011. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed March 28, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/CCI_aggregate_report_March_2011-rps.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/CCI_aggregate_report_March_2011-rps.pdf Shelf Number: 121146 Keywords: DisabilityDiversityJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ProbationOffender SupervisionRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Resettlement Provision for Children and Young People: Accommodation and Education, Training and Employment Summary: Resettlement is one of the main tests against which the Inspectorate judges the health of a prison. This thematic review, commissioned by the Youth Justice Board, examines accommodation and education, training and employment (ETE) resettlement provision for sentenced young men aged 15 to 18 in young offender institutions. It reports on the work carried out in custody to prepare young people for release, using survey data as well as indepth interviews with 61 sentenced young men, their case supervisors and follow-up information on what happened to them on release. The heads of resettlement and learning and skills in each institution provide an establishment perspective. Ensuring that young people have suitable and sustainable accommodation and ETE on release from custody is a vital first step to reduce reoffending and enable young people to successfully reintegrate into the community. This is no small task – in our sample of 61 young men more than eight out of 10 (84%) had an accommodation and/or ETE need identified. In our survey almost half of young men said they were under 14 when they were last at school and 86% said they had been excluded at some point. All establishments had a strategy to drive forward resettlement work but in most cases these did not involve external agencies and had not been informed by a recent needs analysis of the population. The training planning process should be central to coordinating work to address young people’s individual needs, with targets set for a young person’s time in custody and plans for their release. We found from our fieldwork that several establishment case supervisors, who oversaw the training plan, had a good knowledge of the young people in their caseload. Most young men reported that training plan targets had been discussed with them, although less than two-thirds in our case sample knew what their targets were and only half said they had had a say in the targets set for them – this then had a real impact on whether they tried to achieve them. In custody, the range and quality of education and training provision was generally satisfactory and it was clear that, where possible, a young person’s preferences had been taken into account when allocating them to ETE. Most, although not all, young men said they were involved in some form of ETE at the time of interview and three-quarters said they had received or were working towards a qualification – 62% thought that these would be useful on release. Although it could often have been better tied to resettlement planning, at several establishments the use of release on temporary licence (ROTL) was improving, with some good quality work placements on offer. Case supervisors realised the importance of accommodation and ETE in resettlement work and reported that these issues were considered from the point of a young person’s arrival in custody. However, training planning targets often placed the onus only on the young person and did not specify what resources would be put in place or how they would be helped to achieve them. The main focus was on how they spent their time in custody and there were few long-term targets aimed at those responsible for ensuring plans were in place for their release. Establishments reported that this was the responsibility of youth offending teams (or social workers for looked after children). At the Heron unit at Feltham young people also had a resettlement broker who was involved in resettlement planning while young people were in custody, but who also offered intensive support to them for at least six months following release. Despite their key role, the attendance of social workers at training planning meetings for looked after children was poor. In contrast, relationships with community-based youth offending teams (YOTs) were well developed and YOT case managers normally attended training planning meetings. However, plans were not always finalised in time for the pre-release meeting which, understandably, worried young people and frustrated case supervisors. Two of the 61 young men interviewed said that not having accommodation had prevented their early release, but no establishments monitored this. It was not evident that discussions were taking place about whether accommodation arrangements set up at the point of release were suitable and sustainable. In our case sample, 61% of young men said they would be living with family on release and the majority were optimistic about it as they felt their family’s support was the key to their successful resettlement. Although establishments realised the importance of young people maintaining contact with family where appropriate and encouraged it, more structured work needed to be done to rebuild or maintain relationships while young people were in custody. This left two-fifths of our sample who required accommodation to be arranged for their release, which was a vital step before other release plans could be put in place. Case supervisors reported a range of barriers to finding suitable accommodation, including a limited supply of local authority housing and issues around the young person’s behaviour or offence. They also reported a range of barriers to arranging ETE for release, including limited availability in the community. At the time of interview, only 14 of the 48 young men who said they wanted to continue education had a place arranged. Worryingly, of the 42 young men who said they wanted to work (either full-time or part-time alongside education), only nine reported that they had a job arranged on release – and for seven of these it had been arranged through family, without help from the establishment or the YOT. Follow-up information was requested from case supervisors on what happened to the young men in our case sample on release and a month later, with information received for 41 and 37 of the young men respectively. Only 13 young men (32%) had both suitable accommodation (as assessed by case supervisors) and ETE on release. Two, including a looked after child, were forced to report as homeless. One in five were placed in accommodation assessed as unsuitable by case supervisors; this included three young men who had had to go into bed and breakfast lodgings – one was still there a month later – and two who were living with family where this was a cause for concern. Only a third of young men had an ETE placement arranged on release, only half of these were still attending a month later and only a fifth of those who had not got a placement on release had one confirmed a month later. Where ETE placements had fallen through, case supervisors felt this was due to unstable accommodation, a lack of family support, the young person’s lack of motivation or problems due to the timing of course start dates. A month after release six of the young men were in custody and one was ‘on the run’ – three of the young people who had returned to custody were looked after children. This report raises a key question – how effective is the resettlement work conducted in custody in terms of the actual outcomes for young people? This was not monitored by establishments and our follow-up information highlights the need to look beyond the gate in order to evaluate the effectiveness of resettlement work. Overall the outcomes for our sample were very disappointing. The Heron unit, although we can make no conclusions based on our small sample, seemed a promising initiative, as did the resettlement consortia, although the young offender institutions involved were not visited for this report. These are being formally evaluated and we look forward to seeing the results. Although our recommendations are to the Ministry of Justice, Youth Justice Board and National Offender Management Service we recognise that, to ensure all young people have suitable accommodation and ETE on release from custody, a joint approach with other government departments and external agencies is required. The starting point should be an acceptance that vulnerable young people released from custody are children in need. This would go some way toward focusing the joint effort that is needed to prevent them from returning to custody and becoming entrenched at an early age in a life of crime. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2011. 118p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/Resettlement-thematic-june2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/Resettlement-thematic-june2011.pdf Shelf Number: 121879 Keywords: Correctional EducationCorrectional ProgramsHousing for Ex-OffendersJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)ReentryRehabilitationYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: To Get the Best Results: A Joint Inspection of Offending Behaviour, Health and Education, Training & Employment Interventions in Youth Offending work in England and Wales Summary: This thematic inspection is one of several which, with the Core Case Inspections, form the three year Inspection of Youth Offending programme coordinated by HMI Probation. The team for this inspection included inspectors from HMI Probation, the Care Quality Commission, Estyn, the Healthcare Inspectorate Wales and Ofsted – inspectorates that have a direct interest in the subject matter. The inspectors visited six Youth Offending Teams and examined individual cases where thinking and behaviour or attitudes to offending, health and education, training and employment issues had been identified as being linked to offending. We spoke with young people about their experiences of the services they had received and also with practitioners and managers, along with representatives from partner agencies. We found that strategically, both nationally and locally, not enough attention was being given to the planning, delivery and evaluation of interventions that tackle offending behaviour. Youth Offending Teams need to access and make more use of information about ‘What Works’ in making interventions more effective. We found that although YOTs sometimes achieved some success in practice they were often not clear themselves how they had achieved this. Better understanding of the information and research would enable them to achieve better results in future. In particular, we found that thorough assessments that address offending behaviour, health and education, training & employment were often being done, but these did not always lead to clear planning and delivery of the right interventions with the right individuals in the right way at the right time. Better case planning was needed, as was training and development for practitioners. Therefore, although it was pleasing to note many examples of good practice, there were aspects that still required improvement by managers. Details: Longon: Ministry of Justice, 2011. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprob/interventions-thematic-report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprob/interventions-thematic-report.pdf Shelf Number: 122080 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ProbationRehabilitation, Juveniles |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Title: The Care of Looked After Children in Custody: A Short Thematic Review Summary: Children in the care of the local authority, or ‘looked after children’, are overrepresented within the custodial population. This thematic review, commissioned by the Youth Justice Board, reports on the care of looked after children aged 15 to 18 in young offender institutions. It examines the experience of these children, using survey data and in-depth interviews. Case supervisors, advocates and representatives from safeguarding teams provide an establishment perspective on how the needs of looked after children are met in custody and in preparation for their release. Of the representative sample of young people we surveyed across young offender institutions over a quarter said that they had spent some time in care. With no central record held by the Prison Service or Youth Justice Board, our survey data is one of the best estimates of the overall proportion of looked after children in custody. Although most YOIs held an up to date list of looked after children, establishments seemed largely to rely on information arriving with the child to identity whether he/she was looked after. Several did not feel confident that they were all correctly identified, the first step to ensuring their needs were met. On the basis of our survey, we estimate that there are around 400 children in custody at any one time who have spent time in care. The most common reasons for children going into care are abuse, neglect or family dysfunction. It is perhaps unsurprising that in our survey those who said they had spent time in care reported more vulnerability and greater need than those who had not. To meet the complex needs of looked after children – not only to ensure their wellbeing in custody but also to support their successful reintegration on release – there must be collaboration between everyone involved in supporting them, which must include the involvement of social workers from the looked after children service of the local authorities responsible for their care. The looked after child’s social worker should support them during their time in custody and be involved in their preparation for release. However, custody safeguarding teams said that the involvement of local authorities was often dependent on the commitment of individual social workers and, worryingly, a third felt that some social workers tried to end their involvement while the young person was in custody. Attendance by social workers at training planning meetings was said to be poor, despite their key role. However, many establishments also needed to improve how they involved local authorities. In contrast, links with youth offending team workers were much better developed and their attendance at training planning meetings was good. Adequate and early planning for release was a key concern of establishment staff and young people. Several establishments viewed it as the local authority’s responsibility to make arrangements for looked after children and were not clear about their own role. Accommodation was often not confirmed until close to the young person’s release or, occasionally, even the day of release. This affected young people’s opportunity for early release and meant that some ended up in unsuitable accommodation. Only two young people of the 12 we interviewed had employment and/or education plans confirmed for release. They all knew what they wanted to do but needed support to arrange it. Despite these issues, young people, particularly those who did have plans in place, were optimistic about their release. Yet they rightly realised the importance of support from their social worker, youth offending team worker and other agencies. However, the follow-up information provided was concerning: one of the 12 looked after children was released without an address and one to unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation. Two had an education or employment placement to start on release. A month later, only one child was attending education and three were back in custody. Local authorities have statutory responsibilities towards looked after children and have their own review and care planning processes. Although establishments said that staff would try to ensure that reviews were conducted on time, there was no formal monitoring and only seven of the 12 looked after children interviewed said they had had a review during their time in custody. Links between local authority care planning and young offender institution planning were poor. Only half of the young people said they had had a visit from their social worker or that they had received financial support or clothing. Although establishments are not accountable for the responsibilities of local authorities towards looked after children, they need to facilitate this process and should ensure that the entitlements of looked after children are being met. At several establishments, staff were unclear about the entitlements of looked after children. They pointed to the loss of internal social workers and a lack of national guidance for establishment staff setting out the roles and responsibilities of the young offender institution, local authority and youth offending team. Only four establishments had a dedicated or specialist lead for looked after children. Establishments without a lead felt this adversely affected the support looked after children received. In my view, the state has few responsibilities greater than its statutory responsibility towards looked after children. Even allowing for the damage they have sustained before coming into the state’s care and the challenging behaviour they may present when they do, that so many end up in custody is a cause for real concern. Our very limited follow-up information suggests that many looked after young people leave custody with inadequate support. This report sets out some of the reasons that might be so. Others have reached similar conclusions. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2011. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed October 7, 2011 at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/Looked_after_children_2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/Looked_after_children_2011.pdf Shelf Number: 123005 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile Reentry |
Author: Hart, Di Title: Into the Breach: The Enforcement of Statutory Orders in the Youth Justice System Summary: This report summarises the findings of a project concerning children under the age of 18 who are in breach of their anti-social behaviour or criminal justice order. The aim of the project was to increase our understanding of the way statutory orders are enforced and to make recommendations for change. Children who fail to comply with the conditions of a statutory order may be returned to court and sentenced for the breach, regardless of whether they have committed further offences or anti-social acts. Youth offending teams (YOTs) are expected to bring breach proceedings after three instances of non-compliance with a youth justice order, although there is management discretion to depart from this in exceptional circumstances. Where a child is subject to an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO), however, there is a presumption that every instance of breach will be prosecuted. The courts have a range of options open to them when considering their response but sentencing guidelines state that sentencers are not obliged to impose a punitive penalty even if the breach is proved, and custody is meant to be a last resort. Little research has been done on the impact of enforcement but there is some evidence that action to achieve compliance does not necessarily have a positive effect on reconviction rates. Although reconviction rates amongst children are reducing, those subject to the greatest level of intervention, such as intensive community orders or custody, remain the most likely to be reconvicted. Some commentators have also stressed the importance of distinguishing between superficial compliance and real engagement, where the person being supervised is genuinely committed to the purpose of the order even if they do not manage to fully comply. There is some evidence to suggest that the children who have the most difficulty in complying with the conditions of their order are not the most serious offenders but those who offend persistently, often strongly associated with disadvantage. In relation to breach offences, some children may have difficulty in understanding what is required of them or be living such chaotic lives that they cannot comply. Data published by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Youth Justice Board (YJB) suggests that breach of statutory order now constitutes 6% of all proven offences, double the proportion in 2002/03. There is currently no available data on the proportion of total orders that are breached, except for Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programmes (ISSP), about one third of which have resulted in breach action, and ASBOs, where 68% of all those given to children since 2000 have been breached. Most likely to be returned to court for breach of a statutory order are older boys, and those of mixed ethnicity. Breach offences, however, account for a disproportionate number of younger children, girls and those of white ethnicity in custody. There are also regional variations in the use of breach proceedings. Around 20% of children in custody have been found guilty of a breach offence and in 2009/10 an average of 9% of children were in custody solely for breach of a statutory order, usually a community sentence. There are gaps and discrepancies in the data that make analysis difficult. It would be particularly useful to be able to analyse the relationship between enforcement activity and reoffending. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2011. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2011 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Into%20the%20Breach.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Into%20the%20Breach.pdf Shelf Number: 123006 Keywords: Anti-Social Behaviour OrdersJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile Probation |
Author: Wood, Sara Title: Evaluation of the Youth Crime Action Plan (YCAP) in Liverpool Summary: The Youth Crime Action Plan (YCAP) was developed in 2008 and involves a three tier approach to tackle anti‐social behaviour and crime committed by youths. Comprising seven programmes or strands, it aims to reduce offending and re‐offending rates among young people by earlier prevention, tougher enforcement and punishment, and non‐negotiable support. YCAP is being delivered by sixty‐nine local authorities across the country, including Liverpool. The Centre for Public Health (CPH) was commissioned by Liverpool City Council to evaluate the six main YCAP projects implemented across Liverpool, and to report on a seventh strand in which YCAP funding was provided to various agencies to help support young victims of crime: 1. Reparation in leisure time (RLT). 2. Operation Staysafe (OS). 3. Street‐Based Teams (SBTs). 4. After School Patrols (ASPs). 5. Family Intervention Project (FIP). 6. Triage in custody suites 7. Supporting young victims. This report provides findings from all evaluations and studies, which were conducted between April 2010 and March 2011. Details: Liverpool: Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University, 2011. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 8, 2011 at: http://www.cph.org.uk/showPublication.aspx?pubid=723 Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cph.org.uk/showPublication.aspx?pubid=723 Shelf Number: 123264 Keywords: Anti-Social BehaviorJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Rehabilitation, JuvenilesReoffending |
Author: Prince's Trust Title: Making the Case for one-to-one support for young offenders Summary: This document makes the case for a more systematic and unified mentoring community to help reduce youth crime and prevent re-offending. As the prison population of 16-25 year olds has risen by more than a third during the past decade, one-to-one support makes sense. For young offenders, it provides positive role models they can grow to trust and believe in; for mentors, the positive impact on young people’s lives provides a real sense of worth, while for society at large it is one way of helping to reduce offending. Mentoring is not something that professionals are trying to impose on young people; it is something that is welcomed and sought after. A Prince’s Trust survey found that 65% of young offenders under the age of 25 said that having the support of a mentor would help them to stop re-offending; 71% said they would like a mentor who is a former offender and 85% said that starting mentoring whilst in custody would be welcome. We anticipate that this report will build on the work already done in this field by giving added momentum to embed mentoring into the rehabilitation of young offenders throughout the country. Details: London: The Prince's Trust, 2008. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 7, 2012 at http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Making%20the%20Case.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Making%20the%20Case.pdf Shelf Number: 124008 Keywords: Crime SurveysJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Mentoring |
Author: Schofield, Gillian Title: Looked after children and offending: Reducing risk and promoting resilience Summary: The research was prompted by concerns about the relationship between the care system and the risk of offending. Although a small minority of looked after children aged 10-17 offend in any one year (7.9 %), this is more than twice the rate of children in the community (3%) (Department for Education, 2011). But also of concern is the fact that between a quarter and a half of children in custody have been looked after (HM inspectorate of Prisons /YJB, 2009). Among adult prisoners, it is estimated that 27% have been looked after at some time (Social Exclusion Unit, 2002). But it is important to bear in mind that these adults may only have spent a brief period in care, and have come into care in adolescence, when they may already have committed offences. There are also concerns that children in care are inappropriately criminalised by being brought to court for behaviour that should be dealt with outside of court. Almost all children in care are from backgrounds of deprivation, poor parenting, abuse and neglect, factors that together create risk for a range of emotional, social and behavioural difficulties, including anti-social and offending behaviour. However, repairing harm and promoting resilience through high quality care can occur at all stages in a child’s development, and especially in adolescence, thus providing windows of opportunity for change. The project was designed to contribute to improving the life chances of looked after children at risk of offending and criminalisation through the following aims: to identify risk and protective factors which increase or decrease the likelihood of offending by young people in care; to identify resilience factors that can be promoted in looked after children to reduce the likelihood of offending; to identify features of the care and justice systems which may increase/reduce the likelihood of offending and criminalisation of looked after children; to identify the key transitional/turning points which are opportunities for interventions to divert children from offending; to develop an evidence-based typology of looked after children and offending; to make recommendations for policy and practice. Details: London: Centre for Research on the Child and Family, University of East Anglia, 2012. 185p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2012 at http://www.uea.ac.uk/swp/research/centre/crcfnews/Looked-after-children-offending-report Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.uea.ac.uk/swp/research/centre/crcfnews/Looked-after-children-offending-report Shelf Number: 124160 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile Reentry |
Author: Blades, Rachel Title: Care - a stepping stone to custody? The views of children in care on the links between care, offending and custody Summary: Less than 1% of all children in England were looked after at March 2011. Compare this with the fact that up to half the children held in young offender institutions are, or have been previously, looked after and you need to ask the question: is care a stepping stone to custody? If so, how and why does this happen and what can be done to help children in care avoid getting into trouble and ending up in custody? Looked after children and care leavers have long been over-represented in our prisons. Research published by the Social Exclusion Unit in 2002 suggested that 27% of the adult prison population had once been in care. Annual surveys of 15-18 year olds in prison suggest that anywhere between a quarter and a half have been in care at some point previously. This is likely to be an under-estimate. Research on children in the youth justice system generally, and those who end up in custody in particular, has demonstrated the links between offending and vulnerability. A census of every child imprisoned over a 6 month period in 2008 highlighted this in stark detail: 76% had an absent father; 47% had run away or absconded; 39% had been subject to a child protection plan and/or experienced abuse or neglect; 27% had been or were looked after; and 13% had experienced the death of a parent or sibling. For children in care, these indices of disadvantage are likely to be heightened, as we know three quarters of looked after children are in care as a result of abuse, neglect or family dysfunction. Concerns at the involvement of looked after children in the youth justice system are not new. Government statistics have consistently shown that rates of known offending by children in care far outstrip those of their peers, and practice in some placements, especially children’s homes, has been criticised for bringing children in care into the justice system unnecessarily. In the year ending March 2010, 7.9% were given a reprimand, warning or conviction, compared with just 3% of all children. Yet, as we have seen, abuse and family breakdown are by far the most common reasons why children are taken into care, rather than offending. If we are better to understand the relationship between care and offending, and tackle the disproportionate number of children in custody who are, or have been, looked after, we need to understand the factors affecting looked after children’s chances of offending, and the relationship between them. We believe children with direct experience of being looked after are best placed to identify, and comment on, aspects of the care system which protect against, and those that increase the risk of, criminalisation. This research seeks to place the voice of looked after children at the heart of the debate on care and crime and proposes a blueprint for preventing offending which draws on their contributions. This report presents the findings of research carried out by the National Children’s Bureau (NCB) Research Centre to explore the views of children with relevant experiences. The research was commissioned by Out of Trouble, the Prison Reform’s Trust’s five year programme to reduce child and youth imprisonment, which is supported by The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund. This qualitative study, set in the context of current research and policy, involved 23 indepth face to face interviews with children in care who were aged between 13 and 17 years old. Their experience of, and involvement in, the youth justice system varied. Some had no formal experience, having never been cautioned or convicted. Others had, and the majority were either in custody at the time of interview (including on remand) or had been previously. In partnership with VOICE (www.voiceyp.org), a children’s advocacy organisation for children living away from home, we set up an advisory group to support the research, more details of which can be found on page 63. This group of ten young people in care and care leavers helped to guide the research at three important points: design, analysis, and reporting. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2011. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2012 at http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/careasteppingstonetocustody.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/careasteppingstonetocustody.pdf Shelf Number: 124233 Keywords: Child Abuse and NeglectChild ProtectionCrime RatesFoster CareJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice System (U.K.)Juvenile Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: The Cost of a Cohort of Young Offenders to the Criminal Justice System. Technical Paper Summary: This paper follows on from our 2010 value for money study on the youth justice system. It examines 83,000 young offenders who committed their first proven offence in 2000, in England and Wales. We analysed the offending behaviour of this cohort for the period 2000 to 2009, based on data from the Police National Computer. Our analysis provides details of sex, age, ethnicity, types of offences and reoffending patterns over time. We also estimated the cost of proven offending to the criminal justice system, including the costs of police, courts, offender management teams, and custody. Our conclusion is that, on average, each young offender costs £8,000, per year, to the criminal justice system. On the same basis, each of the most costly 10 per cent costs £29,000. Details: London: National Audit Office, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 27, 2012 at: www.nao.org.uk Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 124280 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Hall, Maximilian J.B. Title: The Economic Efficiency of Rehabilitative Management in Young Offender Institutions in England and Wales Summary: This paper analyses the efficiency of English and Welsh Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) during the period 2007-08 to 2010-11 accounting for the fact that prisons can both promote good behaviour but also generate undesirable outcomes. With these problems in mind, a new non-parametric program is estimated that allows both good and undesirable outputs/outcomes to determine the ‘best practice’ YOIs, giving policy-makers a basis for implementing cost reductions within the Criminal Justice System by using the ‘best practice’ YOIs as a beacon for good management of public resources. Apart from identifying such ‘frontier’ institutions, we show that, although the smallest YOIs are typically the most efficient, the size-efficiency relationship is quite complicated. This calls into question the wisdom of building ‘titan’ prisons in England and Wales which, perversely, might decrease the efficiency of rehabilitating young offenders. Details: Nottingham, UK: Nottingham University Business School, 2012. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: NUBS Research Paper Series No. 2012-04: Accessed February 27, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1992468 Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1992468 Shelf Number: 124284 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Rehabilitation |
Author: Haines, A. Title: Evaluation of the Youth Justice Liaison and Diversion (YJLD) Pilot Scheme: Final Report Summary: In 2007 the Department commissioned a pilot programme of six pilot schemes for improvement in health provision within the youth justice system and provision of help for children and young people Getting it right for children, young people and families with a range of health needs including mental health and developmental problems, speech and communication difficulties, learning disabilities. These young people were screened for health needs, supported into services, and where possible diverted away from the formal youth justice system. The pilot programme was managed in partnership with the Centre for Mental Health and pilot schemes were based in Lewisham, Halton and Warrington, Peterborough, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelesa, South Tees and Wolverhampton. Liverpool University was commissioned to produce an independent academic evaluation of the pilots, to measure their effectiveness in improving health and reduce offending behaviour. The final report, published in March 2012, will inform the National Liaison and Diversion Programme, as part of the Government’s commitment, to ensure that liaison and diversion services for all ages should be available on a national basis from 2014. Details: Liverpool, U.K.: University of Liverpool, 2012. 201p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2012 at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_133007.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_133007.pdf Shelf Number: 124627 Keywords: Juvenile DiversionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Learning DisabilitiesMental Health Services |
Author: McKeaveney, Patricia Title: Review of 10 - 13 Year Olds Endtering Custody Summary: This report presents the findings from a review of 10–13 year olds who were admitted to custody in the Juvenile Justice Centre between January 2003 and August 2004. It focuses on the service provision and systems/mechanisms which may have influenced or impacted on the identified children and their families/carers. The Criminal Justice Review, reporting in March 2000, stated that 10-13 year old children “should not be drawn into the juvenile custodial system and that the presumption should be that they will be diverted away from prosecution unless they are persistent, serious or violent offenders… We recommend that children aged 10-13 inclusive who are found guilty of criminal offences should not be held in juvenile justice centres, and that their accommodation needs should be provided by the care system.” Details: Belfast, U.K.: Youth Justice Agency, 2005. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2012 at http://www.youthjusticeagencyni.gov.uk/document_uploads/Review_of_10-13_Year_Olds_entering_Custody.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.youthjusticeagencyni.gov.uk/document_uploads/Review_of_10-13_Year_Olds_entering_Custody.pdf Shelf Number: 125036 Keywords: Juvenile Detention (U.K.)Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Youth Custody (U.K.) |
Author: Qa Research Title: Children and Gangs: Summary report for Children & Young People Now magazine Summary: ‘Children and Gangs’ is a targeted study undertaken by Qa Research (Qa) on behalf of Children & Young People Now magazine. The resulting report examines the experiences of young people who are gang-affiliated or who have witnessed street gang activity. The views of professionals who support young people associated with gangs are also presented. Details: Brackenhill, York, U.K.: Qa Research, 2011. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 24, 2012 at http://www.qaresearch.co.uk/index.php?/component/option,com_rokdownloads/id,60/task,download/view,file/ Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.qaresearch.co.uk/index.php?/component/option,com_rokdownloads/id,60/task,download/view,file/ Shelf Number: 125063 Keywords: Gang Violence (U.K.)Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Youth Gangs (U.K.) |
Author: Bradford Metropolitan District Council (U.K.) Title: Reducing Reoffending and Young People in Custody Summary: Bradford has a young population, with 28 per cent of the population under 20 years of age, compared to 24 per cent nationally. It also has relatively high levels of both youth offending and of youths breaching community sentences so that they end up in custody. To address these issues this project set out to utilise customer insight to better understand and engage with young people ultimately hoping to divert them away from offending and improve compliance with court orders. In addition to the obvious benefit this will bring, both for the individual young people themselves and for their families, it will also help to reduce overall costs through lower expenditure on policing; court appearances and short custodial sentences and it should contribute to lower levels of crime within the locality. By gaining a deeper insight into this client group, they would be enabled to deliver more differentiated and targeted youth offending services, as well as removing duplication as different agencies currently work across each other to support his group. The project also set out to profile the wider community and consider their attitudes to youth offending. It sought to identify opportunities to support wider work on community cohesion and identify localities where Big Society initiatives could be used to reduce youth offending. This part of the project sought to provide better information on youth crime to local area committees, providing a vehicle for local residents to determine which preventative services should be delivered in their locality. The principle aim of the project was to reduce youth crime and anti-social behaviour through the delivery of the following objectives: a reduction of breaches through better compliance with court orders a reduction in prolific offenders support to those local social enterprises activities that target crime and anti-social activity improvement of prevention activity, by understanding how targeted activities work best for different groups profiling of offenders and anti-social behaviour order information mapping the frequency of reoffending of young people in custody and patterns to help prevent reoffending. mapping the impact of breaches of orders increasing levels of cohesion between youths and the wider community. The project had the following targets, which it recognises are ambitious considering the current economic climate and the increase in youth unemployment: a 5 per cent reduction in detected offences committed by young offenders a 5 per cent reduction in young people sentenced to custody a 3 per cent reduction in the breach of court hearings It was estimated that these would provide the following financial savings: £448,000 reduction in detected offences committed by young offenders £203,200 reduction in the costs of providing annual custody for offenders £12,600 reduction in the cost of preparing for court appearances This is a total potential direct saving of £665,800. Additional benefits are more difficult to quantify and relate directly back to the project, however, these are likely to include those „societal costs‟ that are difficult to measure in financial terms. For example, costs from reoffending in terms of resident well-being (e.g. reduced levels of fear of crime and associated mental health benefits) and local authority and partner provider savings from more effective targeting and delivery of prevention services, avoiding the duplication of services. Details: Bradford, UK: Bradford Metropolitan District Council, 2012. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2012 at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/effective-practice/crime-effective-practice/other-crime-types/Reducng-Reoffding-and-Yng-People?view=Binary Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/effective-practice/crime-effective-practice/other-crime-types/Reducng-Reoffding-and-Yng-People?view=Binary Shelf Number: 125455 Keywords: Anti-Social BehaviorDelinquency PreventionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)RecidivismReoffendingTreatment Programs, Juveniles |
Author: Great Britain. Home Office Title: Assessing young people in police custody: An examination of the operation of Triage schemes Summary: Occasional Paper 106 examines the operation of Triage schemes. Triage schemes are based in police stations and aim to identify the needs of young people as they enter the youth justice system. A key objective of the schemes is to address offending behaviour by diverting young people who have committed less serious crimes away from the formal youth justice system and into restorative interventions and other services. The report highlights a number of lessons that can be learnt about the design, implementation and delivery of Triage schemes from the experiences of the seven local areas where the study was carried out. There was insufficient data available from the areas to establish the effectiveness of Triage schemes. This report sets out the findings of an evaluation of Triage schemes. The project was set up to assess the impact of Triage schemes on the numbers of young people entering the youth justice system and rates of re-offending, alongside a process evaluation of the operation of the schemes in different areas. However, there were insufficient data available from the areas to establish the effectiveness of Triage schemes. So, this report examines the operation of Triage in different areas, drawing out good practice Triage schemes were set up to assess young people as they enter the youth justice system, and to ensure that their needs are identified. Triage schemes are based in police stations and a key aim is to divert young people who have committed less serious crimes away from formal sanctions and towards restorative justice interventions and other services. A key worker, usually from the youth offending team, works in partnership with police officers from the custody suite to identify and engage young people who have been arrested. Details: London: Home Office, 2012. 39p. Source: Occasional Paper 106: Internet Resource: Accessed August 1, 2012 at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/occ106?view=Binary Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/occ106?view=Binary Shelf Number: 125835 Keywords: Evaluative StudiesJuvenile Justice System (U.K.)Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Risk/Needs Assessment (U.K.) |
Author: Ipsos MORI Title: Evaluation of the London Youth Reducing Reoffending Programme (Daedalus) - Emerging Findings Summary: The London Youth Reducing Reoffending Programme (Daedalus) (LYRRP (Daedalus)) aims to support young people due to be released from custody by moving them into sustainable education, training or employment and to ensure that they have suitable accommodation upon release. Offering such support is expected to lead to better re-integration into their communities and access to mainstream and specialist support services; and consequently a reduction in youth re-offending rates and serious youth violence in London. The London Criminal Justice Partnership (London CJP) has commissioned Ipsos MORI to evaluate the LYRRP (Daedalus). The research aims to identify the means to which the enhanced resettlement programme which commences within the Heron Unit, at Feltham YOI, and offers continued support in the community by the Resettlement Brokers, contributes to a reduction in re-offending and addresses the risk factors associated with offending behaviour. This report covers some of the emerging findings from the evaluation, with a specific focus on the experiences of young people. The interim evaluation report due in late 2010 will cover in detail the process of the programme (set up and delivery) as well as building on the findings around the experiences of – and outcomes for – the young people. The final report is due in March 2012, and will include a reconviction study and a cost benefit analysis. Details: London: Ipsos MORI, 2010. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 21, 2012 at http://www.londoncjp.gov.uk/publications/2010_06_02_LYRRPEmergingFindingsRpt.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.londoncjp.gov.uk/publications/2010_06_02_LYRRPEmergingFindingsRpt.pdf Shelf Number: 126081 Keywords: Evaluative StudiesJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Recidivism (U.K.)Reoffending (U.K.) |
Author: Cooper, Karen Title: Keeping Young People Engaged: Improving education, training and employment opportunities for serious and persistent young offenders Summary: In 2002, the Youth Justice Board (YJB) secured funding from the Government spending review to establish the ‘Keeping Young People Engaged’ (KYPE) initiative. A partnership project led by the YJB and the Connexions Service, KYPE was intended to support the existing capabilities of youth offending teams (YOTs) to provide relevant education, training and employment (ETE) services for all young offenders, but particularly for individuals subject to Detention and Training Orders (DTOs) and those serving community sentences of Intensive Surveillance and Supervision Programmes (ISSPs). The YJB and Connexions established a joint target to ensure that at least 90% of young offenders would be in suitable ETE during and at the end of their sentence. The main objective of the project was to enhance the resources available to local partnerships so that performance improvements would be achieved in pursuit of the 90% target. In 2003, eight Connexions frontrunner areas were selected to receive KYPE funding. In the projects’ second year, a further five YOT cluster areas were allocated funding. In undertaking the evaluation, three key aims provided an overall focus and a framework within which to draw up research activities. These aims were: to determine the effectiveness of resource funded by the project in successfully placing young offenders in ETE; to assess key components, approaches and practices to help develop an understanding of ‘what works’; and to capture learning from the project in a way that would best develop the wider knowledge base on ETE and provide evidence for policy development. Details: London: Youth Justice Board, 2007. 206p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 23, 2012 at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6703/1/Keeping_Young_People_Engaged_(Full_Report)-2.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6703/1/Keeping_Young_People_Engaged_(Full_Report)-2.pdf Shelf Number: 126110 Keywords: Educational ProgramsEmployment ProgramsJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Youth Services |
Author: Flint, John Title: Evaluation of Intensive Intervention Projects Summary: As part of the previous government's Children's Plan and Youth Taskforce Action Plan, 20 Intensive Intervention Projects (IIPs) were established, delivered by a range of public and third sector organisations. The IIP programme was allocated £13m of funding between April 2009 and 2011. The IIPs aimed to turn around the lives of up to 1,000 of the most challenging and problematic young people aged 8-19, each year through addressing a range of risk factors, using a contractual approach combining support and sanction. The Department for Education (formerly the Department for Children, Schools and Families) commissioned a qualitative and cost-benefit evaluation of IIPs to complement the evaluation of IIPs being conducted by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen). The evaluation included longitudinal case studies of 15 young people and economic analysis in five IIPs and interviews with key stakeholders involved in the national IIP programme. Key findings • The presenting problems of young people and their families were extensive and complex and were underpinned by five underlying factors: learning difficulties; violence (domestic and neighbourhood); bereavement; family break up; and (linked) mental health issues. These factors needed to be addressed in order to facilitate transformative and sustainable change. • Progress for the young people was complicated and seldom linear, but rather was characterised by periods of advance and regression, influenced by fluid family and neighbourhood situations and moments of crisis. Many young people and/or their families continued to require support in the period following IIP interventions. • In two thirds of the case studies, 'hard' transformative outcomes had been achieved, including cessations or reductions in offending or anti-social behaviour and improvements in education. These outcomes were also reported by stakeholders across the national programme. The 'distance travelled' by young people should be an important measure of assessment. • IIPs often achieved 'soft' transformative outcomes including reduced risky behaviours, enhanced psychological wellbeing and social and parenting skills, and improved domestic environments (emotional, social and physical). IIPs had also achieved crisis management or the stabilisation of young people and families which were essential to the further achievement of transformative outcomes. • The IIPs represent good value for money. The average cost of a successfully closed case was about £35,000. The IIP intervention generated average savings from prevented expenditure over five years with an average present value of about £280,000 per person for a sample of young people with positive outcomes from the case study sites. With a return of £8 of savings per £1 spent, these figures indicate significant quantifiable cost-benefits from the intervention (as well as the many qualitative benefits for the young people and their families). • The strengths of the IIP model included: the perceived independence of IIPs; the use of key workers; a holistic whole family approach; relatively small case loads and flexible working hours; ability to effectively engage and assess young people and families and support them over a significant period of time; the use of personalised budgets; the diversity of IIP workers' roles; and co-ordination of multi-agency support. • The relationship between IIP workers, young people and other family members or social peers was the central and most significant factor in achieving positive change. This was based upon a persistent, non-judgemental and assertive approach. This relationship and the use (or withholding) of informal rewards and incentives were more important than formal enforcement action or sanctions in affecting change. • Partnership working was essential to the effectiveness of IIPs. This required access to specialist services and flexibility in statutory provision, combined with support for families to engage effectively with a range of agencies. • IIPs faced a series of challenges, including the scale and complexity of young people's and families' problems; ensuring and maintaining the engagement of young people and other family members; issues around funding and case loads; and tensions and difficulties in partnership working, including securing post IIP exit support packages. Details: London: Department of Education, 2011. 140p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report DFE-RR113: Accesssed August 27, 2012 at: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE-RR113.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE-RR113.pdf Shelf Number: 126113 Keywords: Antisocial BehaviorJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Treatment Programs |
Author: Burnett, Ros Title: Found in Transition? Local Inter-Agency Systems for Guiding Young Adults into Better Lives: Final Report of the Formative Evaluation of the T2A Pilots Summary: Three Transition to Adulthood (T2A) pilots were introduced as part of a movement to give prominence and priority to services for ‘young adults’ in the criminal justice system, recognising that this is a stage in life when the adjustments and passages in the life-course are at their most challenging and when those already involved in offending are at risk of becoming the most prolific. The Barrow Cadbury Trust has been at the forefront of this movement, funding a commission of inquiry, an alliance of interested organisations and three pilots to pioneer appropriate services in their locale. The broad purpose of the T2A movement has been to put ‘young adulthood’ on the map used by criminal justice and community services so that it is more conspicuous as a distinct area of need, and to achieve a more joined-up approach across the age divide separating services, and across the different sectors. Categories of young adults with different needs or additional challenges – ethnic minority, female, disabled, mentally ill, substance addicted – are particularly within the ambit of the initiative, because of their combined vulnerabilities. The pilots are in London, Birmingham, and Worcestershire respectively. Two are led by voluntary sector services: the St Giles Trust runs the one in South London as part of its SOS project, and YSS (not an abbreviation) runs the one in Worcestershire. The third one, in Birmingham, is delivered by the Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust. They commenced operation as T2A teams during the period December 2008 and July 2009, though the two voluntary sector teams were able to embed this work within existing projects. Still with one year to run, in effect they have a dual function: on an operational level, they are demonstrating effective work with young adults at risk; on an institutional level, they are blazing a trail for inter-agency policies that will bridge gaps between services and ensure joined up provision for young adults. The pilots have made great progress in putting into practice the purposes set for them by BCT’s Commission for Transition to Adulthood and the subsequent T2A Alliance. The inroads they have made are on two main fronts: their present work with service users (that is, at the beneficiary level) and their more future oriented strategic planning with other agencies (that is, at the institutional level). The work on these two fronts includes many strands. They add up to a complex package which – especially with reference to continuity in the future – might be summed up as the development of local inter-agency systems for guiding young adults into better lives. Details: Oxford, UK: University of Oxford, Centre for Criminology, 2010. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 27, 2012 at: http://www.t2a.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Oxford-CfC-Final-Evaluation-Report-2011.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.t2a.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Oxford-CfC-Final-Evaluation-Report-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 126114 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Rehabilitation ProgramsYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: ARCS (UK) Ltd, Title: RESET Evaluation -- Final Report Summary: RESET was an ESF EQUAL (European) funded programme aiming to establish a best practice model of resettlement of young offenders in England. It was designed to challenge the lack of integration and cohesion between the agencies involved. It ran for 2 years from July 2005, with an initial setting-up phase before this date. It was led by the charity Rainer, with over 50 partner organisations contributing assistance, expertise and match funding. The partners included Government departments, Regional Government offices, the Prison Service, YJB, Metropolitan Police, Commission for Racial Equality, Connexions, housing providers and voluntary organisations working with young people. The Programme had international partners in Holland, Poland, and Spain, although the programmes in these countries differed significantly from that in England. The project was initiated as a response to research, policy and practice recognition of the need for better resettlement for young offenders. As an early RESET document noted: A previous evaluation of Detention and Training Orders (DTOs) for young people, which included researchers from this evaluation (Hazel, Hagell, Liddle, Archer, Grimshaw and King, 2002), identified several problems with “throughcare” for young people in England and Wales. These problems began even before release, when there was found to be little preparation for release, and minimal communication between prison and community agencies. After release, there was little involvement of agencies other than youth offending teams (YOTs). There was only limited education, training and organised leisure, with problems also identified in relation to accommodation. Good practice, based on research in the USA and the UK, is considered to contain the following elements (Hagell, 2004): continuous case management from the start of sentence (or earlier) to the end of the community supervision period (or longer?), with direct links between custody and the community; commitment and continuity of staff; preparation for release while in custody; a highly structured and assisted transition to the community; both surveillance and enhanced service delivery in the community, with a balance of incentives and graduated consequences for behaviour; services to meet a range of the needs, with sufficient numbers of qualified staff in both the institution and the community; the intensity of the programme tailored to the level of risk of reoffending; and effective links between services, staff and teams in both settings. RESET was intended to explore ways in which this research knowledge could be integrated into policy and practice in England and Wales in order to address problems such as those identified in the DTO evaluation. The specific aims of the evaluation (with relevance to this report) were: to assess the effectiveness of the RESET programme in improving outcomes for young offenders sentenced to custody (including reduced offending behaviour and engagement in a positive lifestyle); to assess the detailed activities and achievements of the programme, in order to identify the key elements that contributed to the outcomes; to assess the direct and indirect costs of RESET, distinguishing between the ‘one-off’ transitional costs and the continuing costs of running the programme (since carried out and published separately by Judith Renshaw); to assess the effectiveness of the RESET programme on particular groups of young offenders, including young women and refugees/asylum seekers/foreign nationals, and to draw some conclusions about the overall contribution of the RESET approach and programme, including its impact on national policy and practice, its ability to be transferred to the mainstream and the effectiveness of the management partnership. Details: Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 28, 2012 at: http://www.commonwealhousing.org.uk/data/files/reset__final_report_final_version.pdf Year: 0 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.commonwealhousing.org.uk/data/files/reset__final_report_final_version.pdf Shelf Number: 126167 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)ReentryResettlement |
Author: Vien, Anh Title: An Investigation Into the Risk and Protective Factors Associated with Youth Offending Summary: This thesis examines risk and protective factors associated with youth offending and how these have been applied to legislation, prevention and intervention. The first chapter provides an introduction to the thesis and reviews current trends in youth offending and approaches to treatment and interventions with young offenders. The second chapter provides a thematic review of the current literature on risk and protective factors to youth offending and how this has radically changed the Youth Justice System. The risk and protective factors paradigm is then applied to an empirical research study in the third chapter. The aim of which is to establish whether risk and protective factors are associated with young offenders completion or non-completion of a community based sentence. Findings from the empirical research study suggest that completers and non-completers of a community based programme differ in terms of their anger levels and their current educational status. The fourth chapter applies the risk and protective factors paradigm to a qualitative case study in order to demonstrate the intrinsic relationship between risk and protective factors and the applicability of the paradigm to interventions. Chapter five presents a critique of the Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal External (CNSIE) locus of control scale, as internal locus of control has been identified as protective factor to youth offending. However, findings from the empirical study and case study suggests that locus of control is not a protective factor for the current sample. Chapter six provides an in depth discussion of all the work completed in the thesis. The main conclusion derived from the thesis is identification of risk and protective factors associated with youth offending is relatively simple. However applying and implementing protective factors in intervention is much more difficult in reality. This has implications for future initiatives aimed at preventing youth offending. Details: Birmingham, UK: Centre for Forensic and Family Psychology, School of Psychology, The University of Birmingham, 2009. 159p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed September 1, 2012 at: http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/852/1/Vien10ForenPsyD.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/852/1/Vien10ForenPsyD.pdf Shelf Number: 126219 Keywords: At-risk YouthDelinquency PreventionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Rehabilitation |
Author: Knight, Rosina Title: Working with Repeat Users of the Youth Criminal Justice System Summary: The Urban Regeneration Evaluation Research Team at the Centre for Institutional Studies (CIS), University of East London, was commissioned by the London Borough of Newham (LBN) to undertake an evaluation of Youth Justice Projects and Interventions. The research was conducted over a period of eighteen months, from October 2002 to February 2004. The findings below draw on the following research: • Interviews with sixty-five youth criminal justice workers, in addition to numerous informal chats. • Seventy-eight in-depth semi-structured interviews with young people, typically lasting from forty-five minutes to an hour and a half. Six of these young people were on bail and fifty were serving a referral order, community sentence, Detention and Training Order (DTO) or Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP). Young people from all of the (now former) strands have been interviewed. Twenty-two of these seventy-eight interviews were second interviews, intended to follow up on the young peoples’ progress through the Youth Offending Team (YOT). • Nine interviews with individuals from key partner agencies. • Attendance at interventions at the YOT (including the street robbery project), Mentoring Plus, Newmartin Community Youth Trust (NCY) and the Attendance Centre. • Shadowing a YOT police officer who was delivering final warnings and reprimands. • Shadowing an NCY worker acting as an appropriate adult in Plaistow police station. • Observation of a court session. • Attendance at YOT, NCY and Youth Action Programme (YAP) team meetings, children’s fund delivery team meetings and some Green Street and Canning Town community forums. • Prison Visits alongside YOT staff and peer researchers. • Several visits to Oxford to visit the ‘Street Dreams’ Project. • An interview with a Youth Justice Board (YJB) effective practice manager. • Attendance at conferences. This study is neither comprehensive nor wholly systematic. It has taken shape through an organic process and is primarily an exploratory study. There has been on-going feeding back at management, whole team and individual staff levels. The first section of this report, entitled ‘Understandings of Youth Crime’ sets the scene for the remaining sections. It is important to first of all map out the ways in which youth justice workers and young people understand the problem of youth crime. This gives an indication of the understandings which both workers and young people take to the experience of participating in the youth justice process. The second section, entitled ‘Working with young people’ will illustrate both effective and ineffective ways of engaging young people in the criminal justice process with a view to achieving active change in or for them. The third section; ‘Multi-agency working’ looks at the issues involved in the YOT’s role as an inherently multi-agency service, mapping out the attitudes and practices of strategic partners, young people and workers in turn. Details: London: Centre for Institutional Studies School of Social Sciences, Media & Cultural Studies University of East London, 2006. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: CIS Research Report 2: Accessed September 4, 2012 at: http://dspace.uel.ac.uk/jspui/handle/123456789/275 Year: 2006 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://dspace.uel.ac.uk/jspui/handle/123456789/275 Shelf Number: 126231 Keywords: InterventionsJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Repeat OffendersStreet Robbery |
Author: Briggs, Sarah Title: Offender Literacy and Attrition from the Enhanced Thinking Skills Programme Summary: A sample of 39 offenders identified as having literacy problems was compared with a sample of 50 offenders for whom no literacy problems were identified. · The samples were broadly similar with respect to gender, ethnicity, history of breach, broad categories of index offence, and OGRS risk of reconviction scores. · Offenders with identified literacy problems were more likely to drop out at every stage between sentence and final completion of post programme psychometric tests · We can be at least 90% confident that there is a significant difference in programme retention between the literacy problems group and the control group. Confidence in the finding is enhanced by repeated observation of an apparent literacy problem effect at each of the stages observed. · There was also an effect of age on attrition, with younger offenders more likely to be retained. This enhances confidence in the finding of an effect of literacy problems, since the literacy problems group tended to be younger on average. · Psychometric test papers examined in the course of this research showed a consistent low level of literacy. This raises the question of whether systematic identification of literacy problems takes place, and whether the number of offenders with these problems is higher than we are currently aware. Details: West Yorkshire, UK: West Yorkshire Probation, 2003. 10p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2003 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 126243 Keywords: Cognitive SkillsEducationJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)LiteracyProbationersRehabilitationYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Title: Young People and the August 2011 Disturbances: Observations from the Youth Justice Board Consultation with Young People and Youth Offending Team Staff Summary: This report presents findings from a consultation with young people and youth offending team practitioners on the disturbances that took place across London and then England between 6 and 11 August 2011. In particular, it presents findings on the views and experiences of a small group of: young people under 18 sentenced to community and custodial sentences in the immediate aftermath of the disturbances; youth offending team staff about their role and experiences during the disturbances. Details: London: Youth Justice Board, 2012. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2012 at http://yjbpublications.justice.gov.uk/en-gb/Scripts/fileDownload.asp?file=Young+people+and+the+August+2011+disturbances%2Epdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://yjbpublications.justice.gov.uk/en-gb/Scripts/fileDownload.asp?file=Young+people+and+the+August+2011+disturbances%2Epdf Shelf Number: 126525 Keywords: Anti-Social Behavior (U.K.)Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Riots (U.K.) |
Author: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Title: Young People and the August 2011 Disturbances: Observations from the Youth Justice Board Consultation with Young People and Youth Offending Team Staff Summary: This report presents findings from a consultation with young people and youth offending team practitioners on the disturbances that took place across London and then England between 6 and 11 August 2011. In particular, it presents findings on the views and experiences of a small group of: young people under 18 sentenced to community and custodial sentences in the immediate aftermath of the disturbances; youth offending team staff about their role and experiences during the disturbances. Details: London: Youth Justice Board, 2012. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2012 at http://yjbpublications.justice.gov.uk/en-gb/Scripts/fileDownload.asp?file=Young+people+and+the+August+2011+disturbances%2Epdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://yjbpublications.justice.gov.uk/en-gb/Scripts/fileDownload.asp?file=Young+people+and+the+August+2011+disturbances%2Epdf Shelf Number: 126525 Keywords: Anti-Social Behavior (U.K.)Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Riots (U.K.) |
Author: Hughes, Nathan Title: Nobody Made the Connection: The Prevalence of Neurodisability in Young People Who Offend Summary: Childhood neurodisability occurs when there is a compromise of the central or peripheral nervous system due to genetic, pre-birth or birth trauma, and/or injury or illness in childhood. This incorporates a wide range of specific neurodevelopmental disorders or conditions, with common symptoms including: muscle weakness; communication difficulties; cognitive delays; specific learning difficulties; emotional and behavioural problems; and a lack of inhibition regarding inappropriate behaviour. This report presents a review of published evidence in relation to the following research questions: • What is the prevalence of various neurodevelopmental disorders amongst young people within the youth justice system secure estate? • What are the key issues for policy and practice associated with these levels of prevalence? The report has several key audiences, from national government departments and bodies, to local strategic partnerships and agency leads, to practitioners working with young people with potential neurodevelopmental difficulties. Details: London: Office of the Children's Commissioner for England, 2012. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2012 at: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications/content_633 Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications/content_633 Shelf Number: 126786 Keywords: Developmentally DisabledDisabilityJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Neurological Disorders |
Author: Nacro Title: Reducing Offending by Looked After Children Summary: Nacro, the largest crime reduction charity in the UK, has published a new guide for practitioners working with looked after children. This essential guide examines some of the key issues in relation to looked after children and the prevention of offending. Highlighting the principal legislative provisions relating to looked after children, it also addresses the main strategic and operational issues for youth offending teams and children’s services arising from this area. It then considers key decision making points in the criminal justice system which can influence outcomes for looked after children and the importance of using diversionary approaches where appropriate. Examining the particular problems that looked after children can face when remanded or sentenced to custody, the guide also sets out the arrangements for professional support from children’s services, independent reviewing officers and youth offending teams before finally considering the importance of good leaving care services in preventing offending. Equipped with useful checklists for practitioners, this guide to reducing offending by looked after children will be of interest to local authorities, youth offending teams and those working with looked after children in foster care and children's homes. Details: London: Nacro, 2012. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2012 at: http://www.nacro.org.uk/data/files/reducing-reoffending-by-looked-after-children-998.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nacro.org.uk/data/files/reducing-reoffending-by-looked-after-children-998.pdf Shelf Number: 127145 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ReentryRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Core Case Inspection of Youth Offending Work in England and Wales: Report on Youth Offending Work in Lewisham Summary: This Core Case Inspection of youth offending work in Lewisham took place as part of the Inspection of Youth Offending programme. We have examined a representative sample of youth offending cases from the area, and have judged how often the Public Protection and the Safeguarding aspects of the work were done to a sufficiently high level of quality. We judged that the Safeguarding aspects of the work were done well enough 75% of the time. With the Public Protection aspects, work to keep to a minimum each individual’s Risk of Harm to others was done well enough 68% of the time, and the work to make each individual less likely to reoffend was done well enough 80% of the time. A more detailed analysis of our findings is provided in the main body of this report, and summarised in a table in Appendix 1. These figures can be viewed in the context of our findings from Wales and the regions of England inspected so far. We also found against a difficult backdrop that included gang rivalry, drugs and knife crime, the staff in Lewisham worked constructively with children and young people. Improvements were needed, however, to improve the quality of work related to the Risk of Harm to others and to some aspects of how the vulnerability of those children and young people known to the service could be reduced. Overall, we consider this a creditable set of findings. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2012. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 20, 2012 at http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/youth-inspection-reports/core-case/lewisham-cci-2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/youth-inspection-reports/core-case/lewisham-cci-2012.pdf Shelf Number: 127241 Keywords: DisabilityDiversityJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ProbationOffender SupervisionRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Looked After Children: An inspection of the work of Youth Offending Teams with children and young people who are looked after and placed away from home Summary: The inspection of children and young people who are looked after, placed away from home and supervised by YOTs was agreed by the Criminal Justice Chief Inspectors’ Group, as part of the Joint Inspection Business Plan 2010-2012. It was led by HM Inspectorate of Probation, with support from Ofsted and Estyn. Its purpose was to assess the effectiveness of YOT work with this group of children and young people in promoting their rehabilitation and maintaining their links with their family and home area (where appropriate) and to identify barriers to effective YOT work. We visited six areas where we asked the YOT to identify, where possible, ten cases, five of which they were supervising on behalf of other local authorities and five of their own cases being supervised by other YOTs. We then assessed the quality of joint work carried out by the agencies involved. The data was supplemented by information gathered from a number of YOTs which were not part of the main fieldwork. Overall findings This inspection looked at a very specific group of children and young people, who are looked after, who were placed away from home and also subject to supervision by YOTs. This group is extremely vulnerable. Some also pose a high risk of causing harm to others, not least the children and young people with whom they are placed. Concerns had been raised about these children and young people by many of the YOTs we visited during our regular inspection programme of YOT work, particularly those located in areas with a high number of children’s homes. From them we heard about lack of contact by home areas, delays in receipt of information about vulnerability and risk posed to others and difficulties in communication between agencies. This significantly impacted on the work by the host YOT to help children and young people to stop offending. This thematic inspection clearly revealed the fragmentation of these children’s lives and how the fact of being looked after could escalate a child or young person into the criminal justice system. It also showed how the two factors - being in care and offending – exacerbated each other. Many of the children and young people whose cases we examined during the course of our inspection had been placed in a succession of children’s homes. It was difficult to track them precisely, but we saw one young person with 31 placements and one placement that lasted less than 24 hours. Nearly one-third had had more than three placements outside their home area and 18% had had more than five (that were recorded); 63% were living more than 50 miles from their home and 24% more than 100 miles. (Regulations stipulate that, where reasonably practicable, placement should be within the home local authority area and as near to the child or young person’s home as possible). Four-fifths of those in the sample had been moved during the period of YOT supervision and one-quarter being moved more than three times. It was evident that the children and young people in our sample were amongst the most damaged and difficult to place. All had experienced considerable family difficulties, and they continued to struggle with the consequences. We found a significant number had been subjected to abuse - sexual, physical and emotional and/or neglect. Many had witnessed, or been the victims of domestic violence. A high number had emotional or mental health problems. Nevertheless, it was not apparent in many cases, from our inspection of YOT work, how the needs of the child were being promoted or safeguarded by a placement so far away from their home area. A significant number were still in contact with their families and continued to drift back to them, whether or not children’s social care services promoted or even allowed contact. In 55% of cases YOTs worked actively with the child or young person’s parent/carer to maintain contact. In most cases, the breakdown in family relationships was further exacerbated by the frequency of changes in the professional relationships the child or young person was required to make, through social workers moving on, placements changing, disrupted education and different specialist agencies being called in. Details: Source: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2012. 44p. Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 127281 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)RecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Transforming Youth Custody: Putting Education at the Heart of Detention Summary: This consultation seeks views from staff and young people in youth custodial establishments, service providers in justice, education, detention and security, health, children services and wider social services, the judiciary, voluntary and community organisations and all those with an interest in young people. We also invite members of the public to respond. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2013. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Consultation Paper CP4/2013: Accessed February 21, 2013: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm85/8564/8564.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm85/8564/8564.pdf Shelf Number: 127686 Keywords: Correctional Programs, JuvenilesEducationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Rehabilition |
Author: Newman, Robert Title: Turning Young Lives Around: How health and justice services can respond to children with mental health problems and learning disabilities who offend Summary: Children in the UK who offend - the facts: • 85,300 children were supervised by Youth Offending Teams in 2010/11, a reduction of 20% from 2009/10 • Around 25% of children who offend have very low IQs of less than 70 • 43% of children on community orders have emotional and mental health needs, and the prevalence amongst children in custody is much higher • 60% of children who offend have communication difficulties and, of this group, around half have poor or very poor communication skills • Around 33% of all children accessing local drug and substance misuse services are referred from the youth justice system • 27% of children and young people who offend are not in full time education, training or employment at the end of their period of youth justice supervision. This briefing paper seeks to encourage effective joint working between Health and Wellbeing Boards and youth justice services, in particular, to ensure that local strategies reflect the needs of children and young people who offend, especially those with mental health problems and learning disabilities. It outlines a practical action agenda and provides examples of good practice to help turn these young lives around. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper: Accessed March 1, 2013 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/turningyounglivesaroundFINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/turningyounglivesaroundFINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 127753 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Learning DisabilitiesMental Health Services |
Author: Newman, Mark Title: A Systematic Review of Selected Interventions to Reduce Juvenile Re-offending Summary: What do we want to know? This is a report of the methods and results of a systematic review of primary research on the effectiveness of selected interventions to reduce juvenile re-offending. The review provides answers to the question of the relative effectiveness of a small number of selected interventions in reducing juvenile re-offending. What did we find out about interventions? Consistent evidence of reducing re-offending • Pre-sentencing Diversion – personal skill straining + for first time offenders. The intervention included: o personal skills training/ counselling which is about anger management, personal responsibility and decision making. o some form of reparation to the community/ victim of crime. o family involvement. compared to standard diversion (caution & monitoring). • Community based family residential placement for female juvenile offenders. The intervention included: o Residential placement for six months to a year in small group supportive ‘family type’ environment. o personal skills training/ counselling which is about anger management, personal responsibility and decision making. o Monitoring and use of appropriate incentives and sanctions. compared to standard residential placement. Promising effects (positive or negative) limited or inconsistent evidence • ‘Teen Courts’ compared to other diversion – Positive • Community based family residential placements compared to standard residential placements for male juvenile offenders – Positive Insufficient evidence • Secure incarceration compared to community sentence • Psycho-dynamic counselling compared to ‘normal Court interventions • Pre-sentence diversions compared to court community sentence • Multi component diversion for persistent offenders (comparison not clear) • Multi-component diversion for mixed groups of offence severity (comparison not clear) • Supported transition from secure incarceration to community compared to no or limited support • Probation plus sports counselling compared to probation only • Violence re-education programme compared to court imposed community service. Details: London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, 2012. 120p. Source: Internet Resource: EPPI-Centre report no. 2008T: Accessed March 12, 2013 at: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=3YwaW7wpQnU%3D&tabid=3360 Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=3YwaW7wpQnU%3D&tabid=3360 Shelf Number: 127914 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Re-OffendingRecidivismRehabilitation Programs |
Author: Gyateng, Tracey Title: Young People and the Secure Estate: Needs and Interventions Summary: This report, by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR), Birkbeck, University of London, and Ipsos MORI, was commissioned by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) in 2008. It provides an in-depth examination of the identified needs of children and young people within the secure estate and the interventions they received, based on fieldwork conducted over the course of 2010 to early 2011. The research encompassed the three types of establishment that make up the secure estate for children and young people: secure children’s homes (SCHs), secure training centres (STCs) and young offender institutions (YOIs). The key aims of the research were to: identify what types of interventions young people received within secure establishments describe the extent to which interventions were matched to identified needs elicit and describe young people’s experiences within the secure estate outline the views of staff within the secure estate regarding interventions. Methods The following research methods were used: a survey of 1,245 young people approaching the end of a custodial sentence (827 in YOIs, 229 in STCs and 189 in SCHs) an analysis of the administrative records, where available, for the surveyed young people (713 in YOIs, 211 in STCs and 181 in SCHs: 1,105 in total) forty-two in-depth qualitative interviews with secure estate staff across five establishments (two YOIs, two STCs and one SCH). Young people who were serving a custodial sentence were included in the study if they had a release date within four months after completion of the survey at the end of 2010. Young people were surveyed in six phases over the course of 2010. They were initially selected for participation in the survey on a random basis. However, since the population of young people in custody was consistently falling, phases two to six of the survey took the form of a census of all young people exiting custody within the defined timeframe. The analysis of administrative records involved an on-site case file review; and, to complement this, data were collected from the eAsset system at the YJB headquarters. However, both data collection methods found inconsistencies across the secure estate in the recording of details of interventions received by individual young people, such as the frequency and intensity of interventions, and levels of completion and achievement. Ten YOIs (including one female YOI), four STCs and eight SCHs participated in the study. Establishments were chosen to ensure that the sampled population covered 94% of the secure estate yearly throughput in YOIs5 and SCHs, and 100% in STCs. The following limitations need to be borne in mind when interpreting the findings: survey of young people Young people on longer sentences such as detention for public protection (section 226/228), where the release date could not be provided, were not included in this study. As they comprise only 4% of the sentenced custodial population, it is likely that the exclusion of this particular group of offenders will have had only a minimal impact on the yearly throughput. administrative data The completeness and quality of data varied both within and between establishment types. Unfortunately complete data were rarely available on each individual. Some form of administrative data were collected for 1,105 of the young people who participated in the survey. This sub-sample was broadly representative of the wider survey sample. in-depth interviews with secure estate staff Interviews were conducted with 42 staff from five secure establishments. It should be noted that findings from these interviews may not represent the views of all staff working within the secure estate. Key findings The research encompassed two main themes: young people’s general experiences of the secure estate and their relationships with staff at the secure establishments the interventions or programmes the young people received in relation to education, training and employment; offending behaviour; substance misuse; and resettlement into the community. Details: London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2013. 122p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2013 at: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/34265/young-people-secure-estate.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/34265/young-people-secure-estate.pdf Shelf Number: 127994 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Rehabilitation Programs |
Author: Bateman, Tim Title: Resettlement of Young People Leaving Custody: Lessons from the literature Summary: This literature review aims to set out the research and practice evidence about effective resettlement services for children and young adults and can be used to inform future policy and practice to ensure service delivery is evidence based. The findings of the review will help to steer the focus of Beyond Youth Custody’s research over the duration of the programme and act as a baseline to assess how our understanding has advanced in terms of what works in facilitating the transition from youth custody to the community and beyond. In addition, the review highlights some examples of good practice, as well as the emerging key principles of effective resettlement provision. This literature review presents the findings of an analysis of research and practice literature about resettlement services for young people when they leave custody. It will act as a baseline to assess how the Youth in Focus delivery projects have advanced our knowledge of what works within youth resettlement following custody. The review also highlights some emerging principles of effective practice that will be useful for practitioners, policymakers and commissioners to ensure resettlement services are designed and delivered in a way which meets the needs of young people and consequently which reduces reoffending. The headline findings of the literature review are: •Custodial sentences have the highest reconviction rates, but more effective and better coordinated resettlement provision and planning can significantly reduce offending and public costs. •The reduction of numbers in custody has brought additional challenges in relation to resettling these remaining young people. •The transition from custody to community is an opportunity for positive change for young people, but is impeded by system failures in joint working between community stakeholders and the institution. •Key principles to inform effective practice include: ensuring continuity between custody and community; adequate preparation for release; ensuring support immediately on release; proactive engagement and collaboration with the young person; and a focus on co-ordinating partnerships of stakeholders across sectors. •Priority issues for further exploration include: continuity across the transition to adulthood; sustained engagement to and beyond the end of the licence; ensuring support without increasing licence requirements; meeting diversity in the custodial population; managing an exit from support; extending resettlement provision to the remand population; and critical consideration of alternative aims and measures for long-term resettlement success. Details: London: Beyond Youth Custody, 2013. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2013 at: http://www.beyondyouthcustody.net/resources/publications/lessons-from-the-literature/ Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.beyondyouthcustody.net/resources/publications/lessons-from-the-literature/ Shelf Number: 128679 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)ReentryReintegrationResettlement |
Author: Howard League for Penal Reform Title: Life Outside: Collective Identity, Collection Exclusion Summary: Much of the subsequent debate has singled out the involvement of children and young people in the looting and violence, although in reality the age range and backgrounds of those convicted in the courts have been considerably more diverse than was initially suspected. The debate has split in part over an emphasis on the criminal justice response to be made, and partly over an emphasis on causes. While not developed with these terrible events in mind, Life Outside makes a contribution to both aspects of this debate. Life Outside is the second substantive policy report to be produced from participation with children and young people in the criminal justice system as part of U R Boss, a five year project supported by the Big Lottery Fund. The first report, Life Inside, explored the experience of teenage boys in prison. This report picks up the story after children and young people leave custody. Taken together, the two reports spell out the failures of our current approach to youth justice. The youth justice system, dealing with children under the age of 18, has received a great deal of investment and the last Labour government introduced a network of youth offending teams up and down the country, as well as sentencing innovations such as the Detention and Training Order. Child custody numbers duly exploded and interventions previously rooted in the welfare system became increasingly punitive and linked to a culture of compliance and control that pays little heed to the chaotic nature of these young people’s lives, and which has little or no purchase over the deep and complex social problems which form the underlying causes of youth crime. Unsurprisingly, reoffending rates among children remain the highest of any age group in the penal system. The young people we spoke to make clear why the various stages of life after custody are all too often opportunities to fail, rather than a sure pathway to success. Much of what they told us confirmed the Howard League’s longstanding view that the funding directed into the youth justice system would be better directed into a welfare approach, and that downward pressure should be exerted on the system through measures such as raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. What the young people we spoke to particularly emphasised, however, was the issue of identity and the way in which the current system sets out to reinforce the feelings of disenfranchisement and detachment from society that erodes these children’s hopes of a positive future. At its very foundation, the youth justice system is predicated on mistaken assumptions that doom those within its ambit from the very start. And the relevance of this to the public debate now raging? The collective exclusion that young people feel may well have played its part in why disorder flared on the streets of London and elsewhere this summer. But we would be wise to think twice before perpetuating responses that simply serve to exacerbate that exclusion and which fail to unpick the reasons why young people commit crime in the first place. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2013 at: http://www.urboss.org.uk/downloads/publications/HL_Life_outside.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.urboss.org.uk/downloads/publications/HL_Life_outside.pdf Shelf Number: 129464 Keywords: Juvenile AftercareJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ReentryRecidivismRehabilitationReintegrationResettlement |
Author: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Title: Youth to Adult Transitions Framework: Advice for managing cases which transfer from Youth Offending Teams to Probation Trusts Summary: The point of transfer from youth to adult justice services is a critical time for a young person and for the justice professionals who must work to ensure that a young person’s welfare is properly safeguarded and that any risks they pose to the public are minimised. Improving the transition from youth to adult services will produce better outcomes for young people as they are supported through the process during a fragile time in their lives. Making improvements in the way that information is shared between Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), under-18 YOIs and probation trusts and young adult YOIs will lead to more informed assessments, continuity in interventions and advances in addressing the needs of young people. There is evidence to suggest that improved practice in this area may also have an impact on reoffending rates. This framework has been developed by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) in conjunction with the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). It provides advice to YOTs and local probation trusts that manage the transition of young people from youth to adult justice services in the community. It contains information about the essential elements of the transition process and seeks to empower local agencies in finding creative solutions and developing systems to aide transition. In addition, it promotes current good practice and encourages YOTs and probation trusts to consider this when agreeing an appropriate local approach. National Standards for Youth Justice Services require YOTs to have a local transition protocol in place. This should be developed in a way that builds on the content of this framework and takes into account local arrangements. Details: London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2012 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 7, 2013 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/youth-justice/youth-to-adult-transitions/youth-to-adult-transitions-framework Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/youth-justice/youth-to-adult-transitions/youth-to-adult-transitions-framework Shelf Number: 129572 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ProbationProbationYoung Adult OffendersYouth to Adult Transitions |
Author: Harrington, Richard Title: Mental Health Needs and Effectiveness of Provision for Young Offenders in Custody and in the Community Summary: Although there is growing literature on the mental health needs of adolescents in the youth justice system, there remain many unanswered questions. Epidemiological cross-sectional studies have revealed high levels of mental health and social needs. However, many of these studies have been small, focusing on specific populations - for example, those in secure care. These young people frequently move within the youth justice system between community and secure sites, but there have been few longitudinal studies describing how their needs change. Such studies - although difficult to conduct - are vital when considering what mental health resources are necessary to meet changing needs. What is also unclear is how the different professional organisations can work together in order to provide effective interventions, both to reduce offending behaviour and also improve the mental health and wellbeing of young offenders. The research described here was conducted during a period of rapid change in the youth justice system. For example, our previous study commented on the lack of mental health and educational provision in secure facilities (Kroll et al, 2002). At the time of the study, youth offending teams (Yots) had only just been established. However, since then, there have been numerous changes. Yots are now well established, with their own national standards and targets, and the sentencing of young offenders has changed considerably - for example, with the introduction of the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) and Detention and Training Orders (DTOs). There is also increasing emphasis on mental health screening, and providing interventions to reduce offending. In this context of continuing change, the Youth Justice Board commissioned us to conduct a national study on the mental health needs of young offenders in custody and in the community. We were also asked to describe models of service provision, and to comment on examples of good practice - particularly, what interventions work to reduce mental health needs and offending behaviour. The specific aims of the study were: to describe the overall mental health and psychosocial needs of young offenders - both in custody and in the community - and to identify how needs vary according to gender, ethnicity and placement (custody versus community) to describe models of mental health provision available for young offenders, and examples of good practice to evaluate continuity of care, and how needs change as young offenders move from custody into the community to identify whether mental health needs predict future offending to assess financial costs for service provision for young offenders to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce offending behaviour and address mental health needs. This report is divided into three sections. a. current models of service provision and principles of good practice b. costs and needs data from the research survey c. a summary of what works with young offenders in addressing mental health needs and offending behaviour. Details: London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2005. 103p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2013 at: http://www.yjb.gov.uk/publications/Resources/Downloads/MentalHealthNeedsfull.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.yjb.gov.uk/publications/Resources/Downloads/MentalHealthNeedsfull.pdf Shelf Number: 131658 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Mental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Wilson, Edith Title: Youth Justice Interventions - findings from the Juvenile Cohort Study (JCS) Summary: This report aims to provide a broad overview of 'what Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) do' in terms of planning and delivering interventions to young people (aged 10-17 years) who are under their supervision in the community. The study was conducted to fill a gap in the youth justice evidence base by assessing the range of interventions delivered by YOTs and how these relate to young people's offending-related risks, needs and future re-offending. This study is the first of its scale as previous research was based on small samples or focused on specific types of interventions. The main aim of the Youth Justice System (YJS) in England and Wales is to prevent young people from offending. Within the YJS, a YOT's primary role is to co-ordinate the youth justice services in the local area, and work with young people who have come into contact with the police or have been given a criminal justice disposal. In order to support the young person to desist from further offending, the YOT practitioner assesses their offending-related risks and needs via a standard youth assessment tool called Asset. The findings from this assessment inform the production of the intervention plan, which sets out the aims and nature of the interventions that will be delivered by the YOT to help the young person to stop offending. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2013. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2014 at: Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266405/juvenile-cohort-study.pdf Shelf Number: 131757 Keywords: InterventionsJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)RecidivismReoffending |
Author: Howard League for Penal Reform Title: Child arrests in England and Wales 2013 - Research briefing Summary: Children can be arrested by the police from the age of 10 years, the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales. This is low in relation to other European countries that have an average age of criminal responsibility of 14 years (Cipriani, 2009; Davies et al., 2005; Howard League, 2008). Minor wrongdoing by children in England and Wales is more likely to receive a criminal justice response than a welfare one (Jacobson et al., 2010: 1). This forces a shift in responsibility, for what can amount to naughtiness, away from parents and guardians into the remit of the state. As the primary gatekeepers to the criminal justice system, the police determine who enters. Academic research has shown that the more entrenched a child becomes in the criminal justice system, the more likely it is they will reoffend (McAra and McVie, 2007). If intervention outside the parental home is required, children should be diverted away from the criminal justice system into more effective welfare support and interventions. Generally, a child within the criminal justice system is aged 10 to 17 years old inclusive. However, in the context of the police station, until April 2013, a 17-year-old was treated as an adult. This meant that they were not afforded the additional protections offered to children when they were arrested, such as having a parent or an appropriate adult present during interviews. This was changed by a landmark judgment in the High Court, where it was acknowledged that the law was out of kilter with domestic and international provisions that recognise those aged 17 and under as children. The Howard League supported this judicial review, taken by Just for Kids Law, and it represents a major milestone in the Howard League's campaign to remove a serious legal anomaly in the Codes to the Police and Crime Evidence Act (PACE) 1984. The Howard League is concerned that too many young people are brought into conflict with the criminal justice system, with negative implications for their future lives. We monitor the levels of child arrests across the country, campaign for a reduction in child arrests and are always interested to hear how different police services are making progress in this key area of practice. This briefing sets out the latest figures for child arrests in 2013. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2014. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 4, 2014 at https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Publications/Child_Arrests_2013__2_.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Publications/Child_Arrests_2013__2_.pdf Shelf Number: 132402 Keywords: Arrest StatisticsJuvenile Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Title: Modern Youth Offending Partnerships: Guidance on effective offending team governance in England Summary: New statutory guidance has been issued to Youth Offending Teams and local partners in England to ensure youth justice services remain effective in a changing landscape. 'Modern Youth Offending Partnerships', published today, recognises the many significant reforms both nationally and locally, which have affected YOTs and statutory partners. Recent changes include, the introduction of police and crime commissioners, the new health commissioning structures and initiatives such as 'Troubled Families'. The new guidance, replaces 'Sustaining the Success' published in 2004, and reaffirms the responsibilities YOTs, local authorities and statutory partners, including health, police and probation services, have within the youth justice system, while also recognising that local arrangements will vary to meet local circumstances. In writing the foreword to 'Modern Youth Offending Partnerships' Justice Minister Jeremy Wright said: 'The local and national youth justice landscape within which youth justice services are delivered has changed significantly since the first multi-agency YOTs were established. 'We now have increased co-ordination between YOTs and children's services, new youth sentencing provisions resulting in changes to how YOTs deal with young people who have offended, and more opportunity for YOTs to be innovative at a local level. 'Nevertheless, the primary duty of local authorities, together with statutory partners in health, police and probation - to oversee and co-ordinate the provision of youth justice services locally and to ensure that the actions outlined in annual youth justice plans are carried out effectively - remains the same. 'The time is right, therefore, to refresh and reissue guidance to statutory partners to help them, their YOTs and the young people and victims they work with. 'It's a timely reminder that although much has changed, the principal aim of all youth justice services remains the same: that of preventing offending by children and young people.' Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319291/youth-offending-partnerships-guidance.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319291/youth-offending-partnerships-guidance.pdf Shelf Number: 132640 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Partnerships |
Author: Krafchik, Max Title: Evaluation of Young and Safe Project: London Borough of Lambeth Summary: Programme outline 1.4 The Young and Safe programme grew out of Lambeth's determination to reduce the level of serious youth violence in the borough. The programme was established in 2009, with its role and approach evolving since then as understanding of the issues and potential responses has developed. 1.5 The programme's action plan for 2010-2013, Help if you want It, consequences if you don't, sets out the approach currently adopted. As well as emphasising the message conveyed by the title, the plan has as its core strands: a focus on young people involved in gangs and violent offending along with a first point of contact role in prevention and early intervention; targeted use of Young and Safe resources, avoiding duplication with other agencies; and a recognition of the vulnerability of their target group. 1.6 The programme works with young people aged 8-19 who are at significant risk of involvement or are involved with criminal activity, gangs and violence. The various interventions it supports are intended to help individuals avoid future involvement or to withdraw if they are already engaged. 1.7 The programme has become increasingly sophisticated in identifying which young people it should prioritise for support and the role that the programme should take in working with them. The programme has devised a risk and vulnerability framework, reflecting its experience of work with young people, and directs its support to those at high or medium risk against these criteria. 1.8 The programme has also spelt out how its role fits in alongside other agencies, especially the Youth Offending Service, children's social care and anti-social behaviour teams. In summary, this is based on the following approach: i) Young and Safe takes responsibility for the assessment, supervision and provision of services to young people who have entered the criminal justice system but do not have a current community supervision order ii) Young and Safe provide access to its services for other young people who have entered the criminal justice system and are under the supervision of the Youth Offending Service, as well as to young people who are the responsibility of children's social care either as child looked after, child in need or having a child protection plan iii) Young and Safe also provides access to its services for young people who are identified as at significant risk of entering the youth justice system and are at medium / high risk on the vulnerability criteria. Inspira Consulting was commissioned by Lambeth's Young and Safe programme in August 2010 to undertake an external evaluation of the programme. This report provides an overview of the work that has been commissioned by Young and Safe, presents feedback from young people and project staff, and reports on interviews with professionals in key agencies who work alongside Young and Safe and refer young people to them. Details: Dudley, UK: Inspira Consulting, 2011. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 2, 2014 at: http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=31339 Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=31339 Shelf Number: 133547 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionInterventionsJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Serious Juvenile OffendersViolence PreventionYouth GangsYouth Violence |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Girls in the Criminal Justice System: A Joint Inspection Summary: In England and Wales, girls comprise around 20% of the caseload of youth offending services. We know from previous inspections that girls tend to commit less serious offences than boys, and their offending is often a response to emotional well-being and issues concerning relationships with parents, partners and friends. Girls tend to have high levels of welfare needs and are vulnerable to the actions of others. Because of their relatively low number the needs of girls can sometimes be overlooked within a juvenile criminal justice system primarily designed to deal with offending by boys. There has also been significant concern recently about the prevalence of child sexual exploitation in a number of areas where vulnerable girls have been victims. The inspection This inspection was agreed by the Criminal Justice Chief Inspectors' Group and formed part of the work stream identified in the Joint Inspection Business Plan 2012-2014. The objective of the inspection was to assess the effectiveness of youth offending services, in conjunction with other organisations, in reducing the likelihood of girls offending and in reducing the risk of harm girls present to others and making them less vulnerable (with particular reference to alcohol misuse). We visited six Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) to assess the quality of work in a sample of 48 cases. We also interviewed key managers and operational staff in the YOTs and other agencies. We also interviewed 20 girls who were serving sentences in custody and custody staff. Overall findings The best work in YOTs was characterised by an approach to assessment and intervention that recognised that girls often had different needs to boys. The assessment and management of the risk of harm posed by girls to others was generally sound and there were some promising examples of interventions that were designed for girls. Unfortunately, this approach was not consistently applied. In some cases, assessments and interventions did not take into account gender differences. Many of the girls were vulnerable and presented challenges to those who worked with them. Efforts were made to reduce this vulnerability, but in too many cases there was a preoccupation with process rather than effective action. Child sexual exploitation presented a serious risk to girls in all the areas we visited. We saw some effective preventative work to help girls understand the risk in their lives and increase their resilience. However, the responses to girls who were victims of sexual exploitation were highly variable in quality and effectiveness and the links between their offending behaviour and the serious risk of harm that they faced were not always considered properly. Although all areas had multi-agency procedures to identify girls at risk of sexual exploitation, these often concentrated more on information sharing rather than targeting work to reduce risks to them. Girls in custody spoke positively about staff and their key workers. These relationships had helped them to develop good insight into what they needed to do in order to resettle successfully on release. However, work to address offending behaviour in custody was often not recognised as such by girls, and YOT workers could do more to maintain or build relationships with girls in custody in preparation for their release. More work needed to be done in monitoring performance data about girls by YOT managers in order to target interventions more effectively and improve outcomes. Details: London: Criminal Justice Inspection, 2014. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 26, 2015 at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/Girls-in-the-Criminal-Justice-System.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/Girls-in-the-Criminal-Justice-System.pdf Shelf Number: 134724 Keywords: Child Sexual ExploitationFemale Juvenile OffendersGender Specific ResponsesJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Campbell, Sarah Title: Same Old...the experiences of young offenders with mental health needs Summary: Despite the numerous reports, enquiries, policy documents, expert reference groups, working parties, consultations, white papers, Bills, Acts of Parliament and changes of government, we are still repeating the same old story - that the provision of mental health services for young people at risk of or engaged with offending behaviour is woefully inadequate. This report sits aside from its many predecessors in that it cuts through all the policy and legislation and talks directly to those people who matter the most: the young people and the professionals that work alongside them. They told us that: - Waiting lists are too long resulting in young people self-medicating with drugs and alcohol while they wait to access services thus exacerbating their mental ill health and offending behaviour. - Rigid criteria for mental health services means young people have to be enduring a severe and debilitating mental illness before they can access any type of help or support. - There is still a gap in service provision between young people's and adult mental health services meaning many young people are slipping through the net and lacking support at a vulnerable time in their development. - If a young person manages to receive support, it is largely centred around medication. Following prescription, young people are left lacking medication reviews, support or intervention. - In the rare occasions where intervention extends beyond medication, professionals have little time for young people and a high turnover of staff means a lack of staff continuity making it difficult for the young person to establish rapport or trust. Details: London: Barrow Cadbury Trust, 2013. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2015 at: http://www.youngminds.org.uk/assets/0000/9472/Barrow_Cadbury_Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.youngminds.org.uk/assets/0000/9472/Barrow_Cadbury_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134960 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Mental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersYouth At Risk |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Full Joint Inspection of Youth Offending Work in Trafford Summary: Reducing reoffending Overall work to reduce reoffending was satisfactory. A strong focus and priority was given to reducing reoffending. Assessment and planning were, for the most part done well, and children and young people were particularly well supported in meeting health and education needs. However, in a small number of cases, assessments and elements of plans were not satisfactory and these had not been identified through management oversight systems. Protecting the public Overall work to protect the public and actual or potential victims was good. Assessment and planning work to reduce the risk of harm was completed well in a large majority of cases. There were systems in place to ensure oversight of, and partner contributions to, the management of risk of harm. Delivery of victim work, restorative justice and reparation was well structured although evidence for the uptake of direct work with victims was lacking. Barriers to information sharing between the police and YOS, as a result of the recently reduced capacity of the seconded police officer, inhibited the use of intelligence as part of case management. Protecting children and young people Overall work to protect children and young people and reduce their vulnerability was satisfactory. Although the majority of work to protect children and young people was completed sufficiently well, we saw a small number of cases in which the assessment and planning of vulnerability was weak, and which, on further investigation, revealed a number of systemic problems. Work was child-centred and there was a positive working relationship between the YOS and children's social care in many cases. Interventions to reduce unnecessary use of custody were good. However, more complex safeguarding cases revealed deficits in the YOS's collective knowledge, levels of staff training, management oversight and governance arrangements. Ensuring the sentence is served Overall work to ensure that the sentence was served was good. Practitioners across the YOS demonstrated enthusiasm, commitment and knowledge of their cases. There was evidence of good working relationships with children and young people and their parents/carers, who were largely positive in their comments about their contact with the YOS. Diversity needs were met well and where barriers to engagement were encountered, these were generally dealt with constructively. The use of self-assessment tools was inconsistent and some children and young people felt their views were not fully taken into account. Governance and partnerships Overall, the effectiveness of governance and partnership arrangements was satisfactory. The governance arrangements for the YOS were complex, with separate board arrangements in place for oversight of performance and safeguarding. Performance against youth justice key indicators was good, although membership and attendance at the YOS Performance and Governance Board had been inconsistent from some partners. More use could have been made of available data to understand trends, drive performance improvement and provide challenge. Governance and oversight of YOS safeguarding work was not sufficiently robust, lacked prominence on key agendas and did not feature in the local Youth Justice Plan. There was, however, some strong partnership work, particularly around health, education, training and employment. Interventions Overall the management and delivery of interventions to reduce reoffending were good. We found that the YOS had a good range of appropriate and accessible interventions available to children and young people. Where provision was external to the YOS, referral systems and pathways were in place. Most offence targeted work was undertaken on a one-to-one basis, although a number of group based interventions were also available. Materials used were focused on the reduction of reoffending. In a small number of cases, required interventions were not delivered. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2015. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/02/Trafford-FJI-250215.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/02/Trafford-FJI-250215.pdf Shelf Number: 135081 Keywords: InterventionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)RecidivismRehabilitation ProgramsReoffending |
Author: Fleming, Jennie Title: Use your situation to change your destination: Evaluation of The Howard League for Penal Reform's U R Boss Summary: The Howard League for Penal Reform was funded by the Big Lottery to run the U R Boss project from July 2009 to 2014. The aims of U R Boss were: - to enhance the Howard League's legal service; - to campaign to change national and local policy and practice; - to change public attitudes to children and young people in the penal system. U R Boss supported young people in custody and the community by: - building on the Howard League's legal service; - involving young people in campaigning for change on issues that affect young people in the criminal justice system. What did U R Boss do? U R Boss was groundbreaking in two ways. First, it aimed to work in a deep and detailed participatory way with young people in the criminal justice system, and second, it involved young people directly in campaigning work to change policy and practice. Legal work The Howard League legal service worked to protect children's rights and ensure they understood the legal system. - Until I had a Howard League solicitor no one explained what was what and wrote me letters I could understand. She explains what is happening - explains the options and what could happen with each one. - Young advisor in custody The legal team took over 1800 calls to the telephone helpline and solicitors worked on 617 new cases with young people. In one year alone they had a 78 per cent success rate for their clients in cases they took on. Young people and professionals said the legal service provided high levels of care for vulnerable and isolated young people. Regular solicitors would not want to know. You would not ring a regular solicitor and say "I am worried about this or this is going off", they would not be bothered to do something to help you. With the Howard League you can ring with anything and they take it serious. Young advisor in community U R Boss also ran public legal education to make sure professionals and young people knew about their rights in custody and when they were released. The project ran training and made guides using the knowledge and experience of both young people and the Howard League solicitors. The partnership between the legal and participation work was crucial to what U R Boss achieved. Solicitors got to know young people and build trust, leading to some becoming young advisors. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2014. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2015 at: http://www.howardleague.org/use_your_situation/ Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.howardleague.org/use_your_situation/ Shelf Number: 135326 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)LawyersLegal AidLegal Services |
Author: Howard League for Penal Reform Title: They couldn't do it to a grown up: Tagging children without due process Summary: - The Howard League for Penal Reform has discovered that around 1000 children last year were given an additional punishment at the midpoint of their Detention and Training Orders (DTOs), when they could not be further detained without a court order - The punishment is known as 'intensive supervision and surveillance' (ISS). It involves 25 hours of specified activities a week, electronic monitoring and a night time curfew - The decision to release a child on ISS at this point is not made by a judge and the child has no say in it. If the child does not comply, he or she can go back to jail Tagging children without due process - Data in this research briefing is based on Freedom of Information requests made to every local authority in England and Wales - 26 local authorities tagged 10 or more children in the last year, and 26 tagged none at all. Five local authorities used this for 20 or more children - This punishment is not available for adults. It is part of a confused criminal justice system that muddles punishment with welfare for children - Private companies profit from the tagging arrangements, but the ISS does not reduce reoffending. Instead, it results in excessive punishment and sets children up to fail. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2014. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2015 at: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Publications/ISS_final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Publications/ISS_final.pdf Shelf Number: 135366 Keywords: CurfewsElectronic MonitoringIntensive SupervisionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Cook, Owen Title: Youth in justice: Young people explore what their role in improving youth justice should be Summary: The Centre for Youth & Criminal Justice (CYCJ) commissioned social enterprise and charity Space Unlimited to work with a diverse range of young people, engaging them in discussing their experiences, ideas for change based on those experiences, and their thoughts on the shape of an ongoing role for young people like themselves. The results were then evaluated in the report, entitled 'Youth in justice: Young people explore what their role in improving youth justice should be'. Claire Lightowler, Director of CYCJ, said: "At the Centre, a crucial part of our remit is to involve young people in improving youth justice services and supports. We were uncertain of the best way to do this - or if young people would even be interested in being involved. Space Unlimited have done an excellent job of working with these young people, and we have enjoyed being part of this innovative project as it has progressed. "We were extremely inspired by the young people we met, and their commitment and passion to helping improve things for others. Those involved in this project have often not had the best experience of youth justice services so it's been humbling to see how much they want to change things for the next generation. We hope that everyone reading the report will feel similarly inspired to bring about change." The report focuses on work undertaken with three separate groups of young people, through Action for Children (Moving on Scotland), the West Dunbartonshire Throughcare service and Aberlour Youth Point in Glasgow, between April and November 2014. Issues highlighted include frustration at a lack of consistency in service/interactions: "They make you go and meet with someone else who doesn't know you and who...doesn't seem that interested because they won't be working you again anyway" and at feeling judged: "The three of them (on the panel) just sat there judging me...talking about what would happen to me as if I wasn't even there". In the appendix, 'Stories of change' show how the project has influenced young people and built their confidence. 'Brogan' talks about how her involvement gave her the courage to ask questions of the Children's Panel, while Shaun Murray, a practitioner with Moving on Scotland, describes how he uses his experiences to help young people achieve their goals - "I'm there to ask the right questions and make the right prompts, helping them to do things for themselves". There are also contributions from professionals that work with the young people. Tom Philliben, Senior Operational Manager with the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration (SCRA), praises the work for proving that "young people want to be engaged in developing improvements...they want it to be real and making a difference, not just 'lip service', whilst Police Scotland's Superintendent Lesley Clark explains why she "found the experience really worthwhile...the formula for this work is innovative and should be commended and developed". This report follows on from the 'Living it: Children, young people and justice' event, which brought together young people and politicians at the Scottish Parliament, which was jointly organised by CYCJ. Details: Glasgow, Scotland: Space Unlimited, 2015. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2015 at: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Youth-in-Justice.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Youth-in-Justice.pdf Shelf Number: 135378 Keywords: Anti-Social BehaviorJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Offenders (U.K.) |