Select Committee on Home Affairs Written Evidence


44.  First supplementary memorandum from the Youth Justice Board (YJB)

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

1.  What are the key local trends in young black peoples' representation as suspects, defendants and detainees in the YJS, as shown by the YOT Action Plan evaluation?

  The YOT action plan evaluation report did not provide local data on suspects and defendants as it related to those young people receiving a substantive outcome in the criminal justice system. Also, as the data provided by YOTs was for a single year, the report did not include information on trends.

  The evaluation report did include a summary of the information provided by YOTs on the variance between the proportion of the local population from all BME groups and the proportion of offences committed by young people from BME groups. This table has been included in the annex to this note. It should be noted that there is a limitation in the statistical conclusions that can be drawn because this is a comparison of proportions of the population with number of offences as opposed to offenders. A single individual can be responsible for multiple offences. In the future YOTs will be providing the YJB information on both offences and offenders by ethnicity to help monitor the YOT KPI on BME representation.

  It is noted in the evaluation report that many YOTs reported that they felt that the number of offences committed by young people from BME groups was too small to allow them at the local level to draw significant conclusions from this quantitative data alone. It needed to be used alongside the. wider work on developing their local analysis and action plans.

  The headline data on offences committed by young people from BME groups also clearly does not provide information on what the levels of variance are for different ethnic groups. YOTs are expected to analyse their information at the local level to ascertain this and the YJB will be also compiling information by different ethnic classifications at the national level.

2.  Where are the major gaps in information collected about the experiences of children and young people from different ethnic groups in the youth justice process?

  The YJB is working specifically to improve the data available in relation to incidents in the secure estate. The YJB has established a data reference group with membership from all sectors of the secure estate for juveniles; Secure Training Centres, Secure Children's Homes and Young Offender Institutions. The purpose of the group is to identify gaps in the recording and reporting process and this will include examining whether there are gaps in the collation of data related to ethnicity. The group will then aim at standardising the recording and reporting of data across the secure estate for juveniles, in common with other relevant Government Departments and agencies— Department for Education and Skills, Department of Health and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. We anticipate that we will be able to break down appropriate data by demographic information including ethnicity.

  The YJB has been working to improve data collection across the youth justice system. New developments including that from this financial year data on ethnicity is included in the management information collected about the number of young people starting the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme and also this year new requirements in the YJB counting rules for specific information on prevention programmes.

3.  Is it possible to monitor changes in the numbers of young people from different ethnic groups in the YJB secure estate?

  YJB collects data from YOTs on the ethnicity of children and young people remanded or sentenced to custody in the youth justice system. As well as the number of custodial disposals each year, we can also monitor the population in the juvenile secure estate by ethnicity at particular points in time. In terms of the number of custodial sentences in each year the following data is available for the last three financial years.



Custodial Sentences
White
Mixed
Asian or
Asian
British
Black or
Black
British
Chinese or
Other
Ethnic
Group
Not Known
TOTAL

Total Custodial Sentences 2003-04
5,454
240
235
847
75
93
6,944
  % Breakdown by Ethnicity 2003-04
79%
3%
3%
12%
1%
1%
100%
Total Custodial Sentences 2004-05
5,385
303
277
797
50
50
6,862
  % Breakdown by Ethnicity 2004-05
78%
4%
4%
12%
1%
1%
100%
Total Custodial Sentences 2005-06
5,600
350
277
792
34
43
7096
  % Breakdown by Ethnicity 2005-06
79%
5%
4%
11%
0%
1%
100%




4.  What action is the YJB taking to ensure uniformity of good practice in tackling overrepresentation of BME groups at various stages of CJS, given the YJB's assessment of "mixed levels of development" in YOT areas?

  The YJB is monitoring the implementation of the local action plans and providing support to YOTs to develop their approaches. The YJB is using a regional workshop approach and its monitoring arrangements to identify good practice and to disseminate that practice. The approach that has been taken is for practice to be informed by the local context including the make up of the local community and the resources available locally to provide support. This will vary from area to area. In that sense the YJB is not seeking or able to centrally prescribe local action.

  While the YJB is not seeking uniformity of approach it is working to share emerging and good practice that can inform local approaches. As noted in our submission the YJB research strategy includes further planned research including a project to better identify the specific needs of BME young people and exploring the current practices of YOTs and secure estate providers. The YJB will be able to use the findings of that report to share good practice.

5.  Will the YJB be undertaking any research to establish why one third of YOT action plans reported overrepresentation of young black people in the local YJS?

  The Differences or Discrimination research report referred to in the original submission gave some insight into the stages at which differences in outcomes in terms of the youth justice system occur that cannot be simply explained by differences in case characteristics. We expect the Commission for Racial Equality/ESRC research project referred to in our submission to explore further the causes of those differences and to map the extent of the differences in experience across BME groups that the Differences or Discrimination report identified. No other research is planned at present.

6.  What is the YJB's view as to why few YOTs' plans for the use of new prevention funding formula were targeted at BME or young black groups specifically?

  In general the prevention schemes developed by YOTs are aimed at working with the highest risk young people based on local identification and individual assessment. Although relatively few projects are likely to be tailored exclusively to BME or young black groups we know that existing and planned schemes are likely to work with a diverse range of young people based on local assessment and do or are likely to provide activities and interventions designed to meet the needs of specific individuals and communities.

  The YJB is aware of several existing schemes that have arrangements in place for responding to specific ethnic or cultural differences. These include Youth Inclusion Programmes such as Luton YIP that can refer young black boys to a local group tailored to cater for identity issues and intensive outreach work by Hammersmith and Fulham YIP to educate young people on race issues.

7.  What mechanisms does the Youth Justice Board have to use ethnic data to monitor the impact of its overall policies on different ethnic groups, in the light of the requirement under the 2000 Race Relations (Amendment) Act for Race Impact Assessments?

  YJB collects a range of data by ethnicity that informs its monitoring of the youth justice system. Data by ethnicity is published in our annual statistics publications, and generally YJB research reports and project and programme evaluations include requirements for samples by ethnicity in order to inform those reports (although it is not always possible to include a sufficiently robust sample size). In the future the data returns from YOTs in relation to the action plan and the race equality KPI will provide information on the overall trends in representation within the system and inform analysis on the impact of overall policies and practice at the local level.

Youth Offending: Variance between Local BME Populations and offences committed (Figures from 2004-05)


Band
Yot
BME Population
Aged 10-17 as a %
of Total Population
Aged 10-17
Total
Number of
Offences
Where Ethnicity
is known %
of Offences
Committed
by BME
% points of
Offences
Committed
by BME
Population
[235]334

Band A:
BME Population
Aged 10-17=>30%
Tower Hamlets & City of London
73.9
979
70.0
-3.9
Newham
72.3
1,797
67.7
-4.6
Brent
71.5
959
69.7
-1.8
Lambeth
59.9
1,393
79.1
19.2
Ealing
58.0
979
55.6
-2.4
Hackney
55.5
1,287
69.5
14.0
Southwark
52.8
1,363
62.3
9.5
Harrow
52.5
484
45.9
-6.6
Redbridge
49.8
549
58.1
8.3
Haringey
49.0
1,608
54.0
5.0
Slough
48.9
589
39.1
-9.8
Waltham Forest
48.7
855
61.5
12.8
Leicester City
47.0
2,762
25.2
-21.8
Camden
46.3
587
50.8
4.5
City of Westminster
45.7
670
57.5
11.8
Hounslow
45.2
733
31.0
-14.2
Lewisham
45.0
1,322
55.8
10.8
Hammersmith and Fulham
42.2
734
55.7
13.5
Birmingham
40.8
7,643
36.3
-4.5
Wandsworth
40.3
1,112
59.0
18.7
Islington
39.5
954
48.2
8.7
Luton
38.5
1,234
35.5
-3.0
Croydon
37.4
1,633
46.8
9.4
Kensington & Chelsea
36.6
384
63.4
26.8
Merton
35.3
682
36.2
0.9
Barnet
33.0
1,102
29.1
-3.9
Blackburn with Darwen
31.1
1,050
14.5
-16.6
Bradford and District
31.0
4,272
20.7
-10.3
Greenwich
30.3
1,288
27.0
-3.3
Wolverhampton
30.2
1,739
30.4
0.2
Band B: BME Population
Aged 10-17=>20-29.9%
Enfield
29.9
1,259
37.8
7.9
Sandwell
28.8
2,302
24.9
-3.9
Hillingdon
27.6
1,149
20.0
-7.6
Manchester
26.7
4,263
19.0
-7.7
Nottingham City
22.4
3,804
30.3
7.9
Kirklees
22.1
2,651
19.7
-2.4
Oldham
22.0
1,607
18.1
-3.9
Kingston
21.0
515
12.4
-8.6
Coventry
20.0
2,970
14.4
-5.6
Band C: BME Population
Aged 10-17=10-19.9%
Walsall
19.8
1,871
15.7
-4.1
Derby City
18.4
1,277
18.9
0.5
Barking and Dagenham
18.1
928
21.4
3.3
Rochdale
17.0
1,966
9.7
-7.3
Bolton
15.9
1,827
8.1
-7.8
Sutton
15.3
833
17.1
1.8
Sheffield
14.3
3,222
19.5
5.2
Peterborough
14.2
1,237
12.8
-1.4
Richmond-upon-Thames
13.7
563
12.1
-1.6
Bristol
13.6
2,725
15.4
1.8
Reading & Wokingham
13.0
1,071
20.8
7.8
Trafford
12.6
1,556
18.4
5.8
Bromley
12.3
788
13.6
1.3
Buckinghamshire
12.3
1,267
25.6
13.3
Cardiff
12.3
3,115
14.2
1.9
Leeds
12.2
6,774
16.5
4.3
Milton Keynes
11.9
1,261
10.2
-1.7
Bexley
11.5
715
9.1
-2.4
Windsor & Maidenhead
11.5
398
4.3
-7.2
Calderdale
11.2
1,619
6.0
-5.2
Dudley
10.4
1,705
9.5
-0.9
Bury
10.0
980
6.6
-3.4
Band D: BME Population
Aged 10-17=5-9.9%
Newcastle upon Tyne
9.9
3,345
3.4
-6.5
Bedfordshire
9.8
1,885
18.6
8.8
Hertfordshire
9.1
4,301
10.2
1.1
Brighton & Hove
9.0
1,079
7.5
-1.5
Lancashire
8.3
6,491
5.2
-3.1
Solihull
8.2
615
10.7
2.5
Stoke on Trent
8.2
2,532
6.9
-1.3
Leicestershire
7.8
2,687
6.8
-1.0
Tameside
7.8
1,588
4.2
-3.6
Bracknell Forest
7.7
613
1.8
-5.9
Liverpool
7.5
4,626
9.2
1.7
Newport
7.5
1,136
15.1
7.6
Surrey
7.2
2,346
5.8
-1.4
Medway
6.9
1,097
5.0
-1.9
Northamptonshire
6.9
3,781
6.8
-0.1
Oxfordshire
6.8
1,854
9.6
2.8
Stockport
6.6
1,422
5.4
-1.2
Havering
6.3
978
7.3
  1.0
Southend-on-Sea
6.3
843
6.6
0.3
Swindon
6.3
1,156
10.6
4.3
Warwickshire
6.2
1,745
5.0
-1.2
Thurrock
5.8
725
6.7
0.9
West Sussex
5.8
3,771
5.2
-0.6
Cambridgeshire
5.1
1,924
6.9
  1.8
South Tees
5.0
2,491
3.1
-1.9
Band E: BME Population
Aged 10-17=
Rotherham
4.9
1,344
3.6
-1.3
Gloucestershire
4.6
1,997
7.9
3.3
Kent
4.6
6,345
8.5
  3.9
Shropshire & Telford/Wrekin
4.5
1,718
3.3
-1.2
West Berkshire
4.5
520
2.7
-1.8
Salford
4.4
2,007
3.1
-1.3
Suffolk
4.4
4,327
5.7
1.3
Bath & NE Somerset
4.2
687
14.0
9.8
East Sussex
4.2
2,190
3.7
-0.5
Essex
4.2
4,658
4.0
-0.2
Wessex
4.2
10,964
3.6
-0.6
Stockton-on-Tees
3.9
1,074
1.7
-2.2
Boumemouth and Poole
3.7
1,846
2.4
-1.3
Nottinghamshire
3.7
3,547
3.5
-0.2
South Tyneside
3.7
1,725
1.6
-2.1
Worcestershire and Herefordshire
3.7
3,798
4.1
0.4
Darlington
3.6
802
0.0
-3.6
North Lincolnshire
3.6
1,242
1.5
-2.1
Staffordshire
3.6
3,664
6.9
3.3
Wakefield
3.5
2,242
2.1
-1.4
Doncaster
3.4
2,213
2.8
-0.6
Band E: BME Population
Aged 10-17=
(continued)
South Gloucestershire
3.4
751
6.1
2.7
Swansea
3.4
1,423
2.6
-0.8
Vale of Glamorgan
3.4
669
4.4
1.0
York
3.2
1,235
3.1
-0.1
North Tyneside
2.9
1,943
1.4
-1.5
Blackpool
2.6
1,319
1.7
-0.9
Wiltshire
2.6
1,796
4.4
1.8
Dorset
2.5
1,640
1.8
-0.7
Halton/Warrington
2.5
1,426
1.1
-1.4
Norfolk
2.5
3,099
5.5
3.0
Derbyshire
2.4
2,705
3.1
0.7
Kingston-upon-Hull
2.4
2,706
2.9
0.5
Sefton
2.4
1,313
1.5
-0.9
Somerset
2.4
1,899
0.8
-1.6
Wirral
2.4
1,849
1.0
-1.4
Cheshire
2.3
2,869
2.0
-0.3
North Somerset
2.3
640
2.0
-0.3
Gateshead
2.2
1,207
0.4
-1.8
Lincolnshire
2.2
2,855
2.9
0.7
Sunderland
2.2
2,924
0.9
-1.3
Knowsley
2.1
1,227
0.7
-1.4
Plymouth
2.1
1,255
2.7
0.6
Torbay
2.1
866
2.0
-0.1
Bridgend
2.0
621
1.0
1.0
Devon
2.0
3,349
1.8
-0.2
NE Lincolnshire
2.0
1,560
0.3
-1.7
North Yorkshire
2.0
3,125
0.8
-1.2
Conwy & Denbighshire
1.9
1,336
0.5
-1.4
East Riding of Yorkshire
1.7
988
28.9
27.2
Torfaen & Monmouthshire
1.7
915
0.4
-1.3
Wigan
1.7
1,597
0.7
-1.0
Gwynedd & Mon
1.6
459
1.1
-0.5
Cornwall
1.5
2,011
0.3
-1.2
Hartlepool
1.5
750
0.4
-1.1
Neath Port Talbot
1.5
663
2.4
0.9
Pembrokeshire
1.5
757
0.1
-1.4
St Helens
1.5
1,012
0.5
-1.0
Carmarthenshire
1.4
1,018
0.2
-1.2
Durham County
1.4
3,174
0.3
-1.1
Rhondda Cynon Taff
1.4
1,260
0.7
-0.7
Barnsley
1.3
1,766
0.9
-0.4
Cumbria
1.3
3,728
0.2
-1.1
Flintshire
1.3
472
0.0
-1.3
Northumberland
1.3
2,065
0.3
-1.0
Caerphilly & Blaenau Gwent
1.2
1,627
0.2
-1.0
Wrexham
1.2
960
0.4
-0.8
Merthyr Tydfil
0.9
391
0.3
-0.6






235   Where figures are negative. BME offending is less than would be indicated by the underlying demographics. The figures exclude those offences where ethnicity was not known. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 15 June 2007