Memorandum submitted by the Youth Justice
Board
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
1. The Youth Justice Board for England and
Wales (YJB) welcomes the inquiry and the opportunity to submit
written evidence. We would be pleased to help the committee with
any further information that may be of assistance.
2. This submission provides an overview of the
work of the YJB and developments in the youth justice system and
notes some issues in relation to the performance of the system
and the use of resources. While not addressing all the questions
in the inquiry terms of reference we hope that it provides helpful
background information and context for the inquiry.
3. Overall the submission notes that there has
been a lot of work over the last 10 years to create a more coherent
youth justice system that alongside holding young people to account
for their actions seeks to address the underlying causes of their
behaviour. It notes that while custody use for children and young
people is high by comparable international standards, and is responsible
for a large proportion of current youth justice spending, measures
have been taken that have resulted in the use of custody being
stable in recent years and declining as a proportion of overall
court sentences.
4. The submission notes that there has been
a new emphasis in the youth justice system on preventing offending
as well as reoffending and that new developments in performance
frameworks at the national and local level may reinforce this.
The submission notes YJB's interest in increasing performance
and financial incentives on services outside the criminal justice
system that can contribute to the prevention of offending and
reoffending. While noting YJB's interest in the principles of
justice reinvestment and the case for increasing incentives to
intervene early the submission notes some considerations that
would need to be taken into account in developing a practical
approach in relation to custody.
THE ROLE
OF THE
YJB
5. The YJB is a Non-Departmental Public
Body established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It role is
to oversee and support performance in the youth justice system
in line with the principal statutory aim of "preventing offending
by children and young people".
6. The YJB does not directly manage youth justice
services. Youth offending teams (YOTs) are locally-managed partnerships
that deliver the majority of youth justice services in the community.
7. Since April 200?, following the introduction
of secondary legislation, the YJB has had specific responsibility
for making arrangements for the provision of secure accommodation
for children and young people sentenced or remanded by the courts.
YJB maintains oversight of contracts and service level agreements
(SLAs) for secure accommodation services. The aim of this function
is to bring coherence and oversight to a previously disparate
range of provision and to drive improvements in standards through
commissioning arrangements.
FUNDING FOR
THE YJB AND
YOUTH JUSTICE
SYSTEM
8. The YJB's budget for 2007-08 is £477
million. The majority of YJB funding comes from the Ministry of
Justice (89%). The remainder comes from the Home Office (6%) and
DCSF (5%).
9. The use of the YJB's budget can be broken
down into three broad components:
— Funding allocated to the secure estate:
approximately two-thirds of the YJB's current budget is used to
purchase secure accommodation. As at April 2007, YJB commissioned
3547 places from the three types of establishment—see table
below.
— Support grant for YOTs and other
specific community programmes: this includes grant aid to help
YOTs develop effective practice, the funding of targeted prevention
programmes, specific funding of the Intensive Supervision and
Surveillance Programme (ISSP), substance misuse services and education
services.
— Operational costs: less than 4% of
our total funding is spent on operational costs, including providing
support to YOTs to aid performance improvement. The YJB is a relatively
small organisation with an average of 232 full time equivalent
staff in 2007. This includes the YJB regional teams.
YJB COMMISSIONED PLACES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
(AS AT APRIL 2007)
|
| | Number of Places
|
| Accommodation Type | Male
| Female | Either
| Total |
|
| Secure Children's Homes | -
| - | 235
| 235 |
| Secure Training Centres | -
| 83 | 218
| 301 |
| Young Offender Institutions | 2,920
| 91 | -
| 3,011 |
| Totals | 2,920
| 174 | 453
| 3,547 |
|
10. While YJB provides significant funding to YOTs including
recent increases for prevention programmes, in the region of two-thirds
of YOT funding is provided by the local statutory partners. In
2005-06, the total core budget provided by local statutory agencies
for YOTs was approximately £195 million: local authority
children's/social services £102 million; local authority
chief executive offices £28 million; police £23.4 million;
probation £17.6 million; education £12.6 million and
health £11.7 million.
11. Clearly alongside the funding of YJB, YOTs and secure
accommodation, additional costs of the youth justice system fall
on the police, CPS and the courts.
DEVELOPMENTS SINCE
THE LATE
1990S
12. Since the enactment of the Crime and Disorder Act
1998 and the establishment of the YJB there have been significant
changes to the youth justice system. As background Annex A sets
out some of the key developments that the YJB has been mostly
directly involved in including new standards and services in the
community and significant reform of secure accommodation provision.
13. Before this reform programme there had been significant
criticism of the focus of youth justice provision. In particular
the Audit Commission 1996 report Misspent Youth concluded
that the system as it existed was inefficient and too heavily
focused on processing young people not trying to change their
behaviour.
14. Notwithstanding continuing challenges, evaluation
of the reformed youth justice structures has been broadly positive.
The Audit Commission follow up report to Misspent Youth (Youth
Justice 2004) reported:
"YOTs connect with services such as education and
health, and direct young people under their supervision to help
in addressing their offending behaviour. Their co-ordinating role
and clear focus on addressing offending enables YOTs to make optimum
use of the available resources. The YJB has also been critical
in making YOTs effective, and the combination of a national board
with local management has ensured that YOTs focus on both strategy
and service provision."
15. The Audit Commission reported that central to the
strength of the YOT model is the combination of both criminal
justice and children's services in the partnership to bring a
more coherent response to the challenge of offending by children
and young people. The ongoing reform of children's services and
changes to other partners is requiring a reassessment of YOT relationships
at local level. However, the YJB is convinced that the central
tenet of the reforms remains valid and that it is vital the balance
between criminal justice, community safety and children's services
needs to be maintained to ensure effectiveness. YOT partnerships
provide a local vehicle to bring agencies together that have an
interest in reducing offending, protecting the public and improving
outcomes for children and young people.
TRENDS IN
THE USE
OF CUSTODY
16. While there are complexities in making direct comparisons,
the use of custody for children and young people in England and
Wales is high by comparable international standards and is responsible
for a large proportion of overall spending on youth justice.
17. While compared to 20 years ago there has been a significant
increase in the use of custody for children and young people,
over the last seven or eight years the use of custody for this
age range has remained relatively stable and has not mirrored
the sharper rises in the adult population. Furthermore as a proportion
of overall court disposals the use of custody for young people
has decreased.
18. As the table below shows, the average custodial population
at any one time in 2006-07 was approximately 100 higher that it
was in 2000-01 and approximately 100 lower than the peak year
of 2002-03.
|
| Secure Estate for Children and Young People Population (under 18)
| Average population atany one time in eachyear
|
|
| 2000-01 | 2,807
|
| 2001-02 | 2,801
|
| 2002-03 | 3,029
|
| 2003-04 | 2,771
|
| 2004-05 | 2,746
|
| 2005-06 | 2,820
|
| 2006-07 | 2,915
|
|
19. The data shows that while total court disposals for
young people have risen overall by 28% between 2002-03 to 2006-07
custodial sentences have risen by 1%. As a proportion of all court
sentences custodial sentences have fallen from around 8% in 2002-03
to 7% in 2003-04 and to 6% since 2004-05.[69]
20. While the sentencing framework set by Parliament
is a major influencing factor on the overall use of custody, the
YJB is clear that a range of other factors can influence its use.
The development of specific community programmes has been part
of a wider package of measures to minimise the need for custody,
including developing relationships with sentencers both at the
national and local level. The general level of confidence of the
courts in their local YOT, the quality of their court reports,
and the overall proportionate use of disposals, not just the relative
use of custody and "alternatives to custody" appear
to influence custody use. Research has found that sentencers who
had effective liaison and communication channels with their local
YOT were more likely to consider community sentencing options
than those who did not.
21. While numbers in custody at any one time have been
relatively stable this does not mean that there are not pressures
on the custodial estate. At this level of occupation there are
restrictions on how much regimes can be improved, pressures on
how far children and young people are placed from homes, and the
amount of movement between establishments.
REOFFENDING RATES
22. Between 1997 and 2004 there was a 3.8% reduction
in one year headline reoffending rates compared to predicted rates
for young people under 18. On a 2000 baseline a reduction of 1.4%
was recorded in a 2004 cohort but this had been reduced to 0.1%
in the 2005 cohort against the 2000 baseline. (While there was
a 0.1% reduction against predicted rates which is how the PSA
is measured, there was a 2.5 percentage point reduction against
actual rates in the cohort.)
23. In general around 41% of young people in the youth justice
system are reconvicted within 12 months based on the most recent
cohort study. The figures range from around 27% for a pre-court
disposal (Reprimand or Final warning), 44% for a Referral Order,
70% for community sentences and 76% for custody.
OVERARCHING APPROACH
24. The YJB is clear that despite progress in establishing
a more coherent youth justice system there needs to be further
progress on reducing reoffending. This requires continuing development
of partnerships at the local level to intervene comprehensively
with young people. In relation to custody there needs to be continuing
momentum for change to create a dedicated and focused service
for this age range. Policy developments (see below) provide an
opportunity to take this work forward.
25. Research, evaluations and experience over the last 10
years have helped develop our understanding of what are the more
effective approaches to reducing reoffending.
26. Key principles in working with children and young
people to reduce reoffending include that first, children and
young people assessed at greatest risk of reoffending must get
most time and attention from youth justice service providers;
second that programmes of intervention must focus on the range
of factors most closely associated with their offending, whilst
at the same time ensuring that mainstream services meet the young
person's needs during and after a young person's contact with
local youth justice services. Third, that all children and young
people are different and therefore services need to be tailored
accordingly, for example in relation to age, gender, ability and
motivation to engage.
27. Particular interventions that show promising results
include (1) cognitive behavioural techniques (CBT) to target behaviour,
including increasing self-control and problem-solving skills,
as well as addressing attitudes to offending, (as long as they
are delivered alongside other interventions to address basic needs);
(2) interventions to re-engage young offenders in education, training
or employment particularly as disengagement is closely associated
with offending; and (3) work with parents or significant carers
where there are family difficulties such as family conflict, lack
of boundaries or failure to condemn criminal behaviour, or family
history of offending. More intensive, "systemic" work
with families is more effective for those where problems within
the family system are more entrenched.
28. Overall the YJB is committed to promoting a system
that intervenes effectively before formal involvement in the criminal
justice system through preventative work, during involvement and
after involvement in the criminal justice system through continuing
support and intervention when needed.
CURRENT YJB PRIORITIES
29. As well as the continuing oversight and guidance
on the use of key funding streams including targeted prevention
programmes and investment in community services, YJB has five
key programmes that it will be focusing on in the next spending
review period that are designed to improve performance in the
system. These include capital and regime development programmes
for secure estate, a Scaled Approach programme to help ensure
interventions with young people more closely match their assessed
risks of reoffending; the continuing development of the Wiring
Up Youth Justice programme to improve information exchange within
the youth justice system and finally reform of the youth justice
performance framework so that it is more focused on improving
key outcomes. Brief details on each of the programmes are set
out in Annex 2.
POLICY DEVELOPMENTS
30. At the end of last year the Government published
its Children's Plan which included its priorities for reducing
youth crime and the announcement of work on a more detailed youth
crime action plan for publication later this year. It has also
announced that there will be a Green Paper on resettlement issues
within the youth justice system, including investigating how services
can provide continuing support and intervention after the end
of a youth justice sentence when there are continuing needs. YJB
has welcomed the announcements and the emphasis within the Children
Plan on preventative work, improved partnerships between youth
justice and children's services and further work on developing
alternatives to custody. YJB is working closely with officials
using our evidence base to inform the development of proposals.
Alongside continuing work with the Welsh Assembly Government in
relation to the All Wales Youth Offending Strategy we believe
these provides opportunities to strengthen the overarching "before,
during and after" approach to intervention to reduce offending
and reoffending.
PERFORMANCE AND
FINANCIAL FRAMEWORKS
TO DRIVE
INVESTMENT
31. Clearly performance frameworks are important in relation
to the setting of national and local priorities and can influence
how limited resources to meet criminal justice objectives are
directed.
32. As noted, YJB has used its performance framework to help
ensure that underlying causes of offending by young people in
the youth justice system are addressed as well as their immediate
management. YJB has also used its framework to promote work by
YOTs to reduce the number of first time entrants into the youth
justice system through preventative work.
33. It is welcomed that some key elements of our performance
approach for YOTs have now been included in overarching PSA framework
for government and new local government frameworks. As well as
key indicators on reducing reoffending by children and young people,
an indicator on reducing first time entrants into the youth justice
system has been included in a national Public Service Agreement
set and in the new national indicator set for local authorities
and local authority partnerships in England. We hope that this
can help direct activity towards preventative work by a range
of services.
34. It is also welcomed that an indicator based on one
that had been set by the YJB for YOTs measuring the proportionate
use of custodial sentences in each area has been included in the
national indicator set for local authorities that local authority
partnerships in England. Clearly local government is not responsible
for the decisions of the courts in relation to individual custodial
sentences. However they do have responsibilities with their partners
for the provision of local services that can help prevent offending
and escalation in offending behaviour that leads to the use of
custody and for the provision of alternatives to custody through
the YOT.
35. It is too early to say what the impact of these developments
will be but they may be of interest to the Committee as they may
create performance incentives that influence local and national
decisions about the deployment of resources and create a greater
focus on outcomes. Under the new arrangements it will be for local
government and their partners in discussion with government departments
to decide whether or not to set local targets on these issues;
however the indicator set will form part of the overall assessment
of the performance of each area.
36. In general, YJB would welcome more direct incentives
for and accountabilities on services that can contribute to the
prevention of offending and reoffending including around education,
health and children and family services. It is clear that these
services can play a major role in reducing the risks of offending
and reoffending particularly if there is action to intervene early.
37. YJB would also welcome measures that can address
any perverse financial incentives that may exist against early
intervention. There are clearly barriers when services that can
invest in early intervention would not necessarily be the beneficiaries
of any savings. Also, while there is strong evidence that preventative
action can result in significant overall savings it can take a
relatively long time to accrue those savings. And whereas community
youth justice costs are predominately met by local services, the
cost of custody is met by national government and the YJB which
may reduce incentives to help to avoid the use of custody.
38. There is a strong case to look at incentives in the
system around the use of custody. However it is important not
to look at criminal justice secure accommodation in isolation
from other forms of secure and semi-secure accommodation used
for children—that of mental health places and welfare places.
Given the overlap in profiles of the children and young people
involved there is a case for closer co-operation and planning
around provision across the three sectors.
39. While YJB is interested in exploring financial as
well as performance rewards for reducing the reliance on custody
making stronger links between those who are responsible for creating
savings and the use of that funding, there are some issues that
need to be taken into account in developing any such system. For
youth justice any method of justice reinvestment would need to
take account of the relatively small number of places commissioned
in the youth sector compared to the adult sector and the associated
limited flexibility in commissioning arrangements. Also, there
are time lags between reduction in the use of custody being achieved
and being able to realise savings through commissioning arrangements
and there is not a simple "place for place" transfer
of costs as individual places cannot be decommissioned simply
and it is more likely to require full units and establishments
to be decommissioned to make savings. It is also important that
any changes to the national funding streams for YOTs do not undermine
the funding commitment of the local partners. There is some concern
that funding commitments from the statutory partners can be fragile.
Finally, any system needs to make sure that the focus remains
on the outcomes of reducing offending, protecting the public and
improving outcomes for children and young people and does not
create new incentives focused too heavily on cost savings.
February 2008
69
See http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/News08_TheSentence.pdf Back
| 
