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
|
