Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Youth Justice Board
1. Further to our original written evidence
and in response to supplementary questions received from the Committee
following our oral evidence, the Youth Justice Board for England
and Wales (YJB) is happy to provide the Committee with the following
information. We would be pleased to help the Committee with any
further information that may be of assistance.
AGGREGATED DATA
ON NEEDS
AND YOTS
Questions on the use of data on the needs of young
people in the youth justice system to examine gaps in local provision,
relating to Q183 at our evidence session
2. Monitoring assessment for, referral to
and access to key services that can address the needs of young
people associated with offending and reoffending has been central
to the YJB's approach to working with Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)
and our methodology on reducing offending and reoffending.
3. The development of YOTs, the YJB monitoring
role, and introduction of a standardised assessment system has
increased significantly the amount of local and national information
to profile young people in the youth justice system and factors
associated with their offending. This not only informs the practice
of the YOT but also should be used to inform wider action at the
local level to intervene effectively.
4. Key performance indicators around engagement
in education, training and employment, accommodation, substance
misuse and mental health services have formed central parts of
the YJB's performance framework for YOTs. In addition YOTs have
been set indicators to reduce the "flow" into the youth
justice system requiring preventative work. Progress has been
monitored at the local, regional and national levels. This in
turn has informed YJB's performance support and national practice
and policy work. This means that YOTs have had regular information
on these issues to inform their practice and to seek to influence
their partners to provide appropriate services. YJB guidance has
encouraged YOT management board to use aggregated Asset data to
improve the joint planning and commissioning of local services,
and YOTs to provide operational intelligence to the partners in
their work.
5. YJB has provided a YOT performance framework
and a YOT performance toolkit for the last three years which has
allowed YOTs to analyse their local performance in a number of
different areas (key performance indicators, national standards,
Effective Practice quality assurance and reoffending). These also
allow trends and comparisons to be made about their local data
against the regional, police force area and national pictures.
Throughput data has also been provided (offences, remands, disposals)
on our website broken down by YOT areas. We have also supplied
a "first time entrants" profiling tool which allows
YOTs to take the data from their case management system and undertake
various analysis.
6. A key issue has been YOTs' ability in
practice to influence partner agencies at the local level where
there are identified weaknesses in performance. While there are
examples of good practice this is not always the case and there
has been the risk that meeting the needs of young offenders is
seen as YOT business alone. This is part of the reason why YJB
has welcomed inclusion of some indicators into the new local performance
frameworks, as discussed at our evidence session, so that local
"ownership" of these issues extends beyond the YOT.
We are already aware of greater involvement across local government
for these indicators and it is leading to more scrutiny of YOT
performance data.
7. Our new performance and planning framework
developed for 2008-09 onwards has built on our approach. The YJB
in partnership with YOTs have developed new more outcome focused
youth justice planning frameworks for England and Wales. The planning
guidance is clear that improving access to targeted prevention
and specialist services is central to reducing offending and reoffending.
The guidance is clear on the expectation that YOT management boards
are proactive in championing local youth justice issues across
the strategic partnerships they represent at the local level.
Achieving better local alliances is at the heart of the approach
set out including improving access to specialist and mainstream
services to address young people's needs. As noted, our "first
time entrants" indicator is now been adopted as part of a
cross government PSA and included in the national indicator set
which should help ensure there is more focus on co-ordinated efforts
to prevent offending in the first place. This has been supported
by proposals set out in the Youth Crime Action Plan.
8. To support the ability of YOTs to analyse
their performance on these issues and to support their work influencing
partners, YJB has been developing additional throughput and custody
toolkits as well as mapping systems to allow greater capacity
to analyse their local data. These will be available to YOTs during
2008-09 once the training on how to use them has been completed.
These toolkits allow them to analyse their local data and support
the completion of the new planning framework.
9. The YJB is also in the process of developing
a new Youth Justice Management Information System for YOTs which
is expected to be rolled out in 2009-10 and currently being piloted
in 9 YOT areas. This will be an important development in terms
of the ability of YOTs and YJB to analyse the wide range of information
they hold on young people and their profiles including allowing
YJB to analyse case level data centrally including individual
Asset reports. As part of this project prototype maps have been
developed including analysing types of offence against factors
such as gender and ethnicity. Currently YOTs can be dependent
on using summary level data or using other partner agencies software
at higher expense. This new youth justice information system will
also allow for greater consistency in how information is analysed.
This will allow greater opportunities to analyse their own data
and compare to other areas (the toolkits referred to above have
been developed for use prior to the rollout of the new system)
Overtime the new YJMIS, as postcode data is recorded, will allow
for sub level analysis to be undertaken.
10. The answer below on mapping and analysis
by YOTs sets out some brief examples of where YOTs have used their
data to inform local service provision to meet needs.
LOCAL MAPPING
AND ANALYSIS
INCLUDING JUSTICE
MAPPING
Questions on YOT involvement in analysis and mapping
including "justice mapping" (relating to Questions 189
to 193 at our evidence session)
11. In terms of crime mapping, while YOTs
will not lead local assessments they are invariable involved in
supporting local analysis as required with specific information
about youth crime. This includes crime audits and local strategic
assessments. There are some limitations in their ability to map
offences in terms of the tools available to them currently and
the information they receive on where crimes take places, as opposed
to home locations of offenders, but this can be addressed by partner
agency information, specifically the police, and will be supported
in the future by the mapping tools and information system in development
referred to above. There are examples of good practice including
close liaison between YOT information officers and their equivalents
in other agencies and for CDRPs.
12. Building on the performance and management
information available as set out above, and the continuing development
of tools to support analysis, we are aware of a range of approaches
undertaken by YOTs to use their information to inform local planning
and service delivery not only by the YOT but partner agencies
including children's services. YOTs do use aggregated Asset and
KPI information to inform their own planning and it can inform
referral criteria to specialist services. This does in some areas
include area analysis within overall YOT areas.
13. YOT reports the following examples of their
work:
— Sunderland YOT has invested a lot
in performance and information analysis and has used segmented
information in a range of ways. This has included, for example,
analysis of accommodation needs of young offenders that has informed
local provision to address identified needs.
— Hull YOT has been involved in analysis
of young offenders to inform some local children's services developments
and to inform the potential development of work on alternatives
to custody locally.
— Barnsley YOT has been involved in
local multi-agency work to assess Every Child Matters outcomes
by localities (nine in the area) including information on young
offenders.
— Leeds YOT support local analysis
breaking down information into four wedges within the city area.
Among other results this had helped to analyse differences in
the education, training and employment engagement of young offenders
informing service provision.
— In Croydon both YOT and Youth Inclusion
and Support Panel data (multi-agency preventative panels developed
by the YJB) is used to map home locations, including information
on other factors such as school exclusions and deprivation, to
ensure they are targeting services in the right areas of the borough.
— Staffordshire YOT have undertaken
analysis on first time entrants into the youth justice system
to inform local work and have been involved in other work such
as analysing substance misuse offending by type and location to
inform service planning.
— Cornwall YOT have used disaggregated
area data to inform aspects of the needs assessment for the Cornwall
Sustainable Communities Strategy and Asset data has been used
to inform criteria for referrals to services and resources. They
report that local KPI data have been instrumental in getting access
to CAMHs and substance misuse services.
— North Somerset YOT has used generic
Asset scores to inform their own project development and resource
allocation including the development of local substance misuse
services.
— Bristol YOT has provided mapping
and aggregated information about offenders by ward level to inform
Safer Bristol planning and the YOT and police collaborate closely
on youth crime analysis.
— Hounslow have used mapping on first
time entrants alongside partner intelligence to inform where the
Community Safety Partnership targets its detached and outreach
youth services.
14. While we are aware of these examples
and YOTs regularly use their performance data to inform their
own planning and seek to influence other service provision we
are not aware of other examples to do more systematic "justice
mapping" including mapping that seeks to identify costs across
agencies in areas.
15. In general YJB has sort to ensure that
the prevention programmes it has developed and funded are targeted
effectively not only targeting individual at risk young people
but high crime, high deprivation areas. Objectives have been not
only to reduce the onset of offending but to re-engage young people
in education. The Youth Inclusion Programme was specifically developed
for high crime, high deprivation neighbourhoods. Youth Inclusion
and Support Panels have been developed precisely to encourage
multi-agency intervention at an earlier point before behaviour
is more problematic and requires involvement in the criminal justice
system. The YJB has required that YOT plans submitted to it for
the use of prevention funding has to have been agreed with both
local crime reduction and children's services partners before
being submitted to the YJB to ensure they fit with the work of
both sectors.
QUALITY OF
ASSESSMENT INFORMATION
Question on the quality of data that is captured
by the youth justice Asset assessment tool (related to Q184 at
our evidence session)
16. YJB is clear that the quality of assessment
information is critical to underpin youth justice interventions
with individual young people and to turn inform local planning.
17. A substantial amount of work has gone into
emphasising and improving assessment quality and we are focusing
on Asset quality in the validation of the new youth justice plans
by YOTs. Our new approach with include a prospectus of interventions
that will include how to improve Asset quality ranging from tools
and approaches YOTs can use themselves to tools and approaches
that will require either YJB regional teams or our performance
improvement consultants to lead on. This means that where a YOT
has been identified as not doing well on Asset quality we will
have a range of tools at our disposal to intervene in a consistent
way across YOTs.
18. YJB has issued Key Elements of Effective
Practice documents that describe the features of effective
services and support the identification of staff learning and
development needs. Originally published in 2002 they have been
updated this year drawing on the latest in national and international
research evidence. A key title in the series is on Assessment,
Planning Interventions and Supervision as this is seen as a critical
foundation to effective intervention with young people in the
youth justice system.
19. YJB undertook a quality assurance exercise
with YOTs against the Assessment, Planning Interventions and Supervision
Key Elements of Effective Practice and YOTs were measured before
and after the exercise. (Between April 2003 and May 2005) On a
scoring range of 0 to 3 (0 means little or no evidence of effective
practice; 1 means some evidence; 2 means evidence that it is mostly
carried out; and 3 means evidence of consistent and systematic
effective practice). At the end of the exercise 70.5% of YOTs
were assessed to be at level 2 and 26% of YOTs at level 3. Less
than 1% of YOTs were assessed to be at level 0.
20. We are clear however that there needs
to be continuous improvement in the quality of assessment. As
part of this and the work on the new planning framework, Assessment,
Planning Interventions and Supervision groups are being set up
in the regions to support progress.
COST EFFECTIVENESS
RESEARCH
Question about research on cost-effectiveness
of programmes (related to question Q186 at our evidence session)
21. As noted we have sought to include analysis
of cost effectiveness when commissioning independent evaluation
and research on major programmes. As noted at the evidence session
this can sometimes prove difficult to achieve in a meaningful
way with the available data and separating out cause and effect
of specific interventions or programmes.
22. Examples of where this has been attempted
include the evaluation of the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance
Programme (ISSP), Youth Inclusion Programmes (YIP), and Safer
Schools Partnerships (SSPs). While there are limitations in the
cost effectiveness analysis included in the research, ISSP was
shown to have benefit resulting from reduced frequency and seriousness
of offending, although costs of comparison interventions were
not included in the analysis. The researchers however concluded
that interventions aimed at optimising contact with young people
do generate larger benefits in the long run. Again the Youth Inclusion
Programme evaluation was not able to prescribe directly outcomes
in terms of reduced crime to the individual YIP programmes but
pointed to a potentially significant positive net benefit. The
Safer Schools Partnership evaluation was clearer on the net benefit
of the YJB-ACPO model of SSPs both in terms of short term and
future benefits.
23. In general it is recognised that effectively
targeted preventative work can be more cost-effective as it is
more likely to reach those that would otherwise experience poor
outcomes requiring more costly intervention over time. It is clearly
critical that targeting is effectively undertaken to achieve this.
24. In addition to the research above, we
are in the process of agreeing a contract for our research into
the relative effectiveness of the secure estate which will have
a value for money element to it. The relative effectiveness of
the secure estate study will explore the relationship between
regime and subsequent outcomes for young people (changes in assessed
risk and recidivism) and will explore differences within the three
different types of secure establishments. It will further model
the cost effectiveness of each type of establishment in relation
to the outcomes observed. We envisage that this as a study using
three distinct cohorts across Secure Training Centres, Secure
Children's Homes and YOIs, as we cannot reliably attribute cause
and effect and comparisons between the different types of establishments
are not necessarily valid. This study is due to report in autumn
2010.
25. Finally, the Juvenile Cohort Study also
plans to explore value for money in terms of outcomes for young
people related to the interventions they have received. In general,
the Juvenile Cohort Study will explore the relationship between
different types of young people (demographics, offence history
and disposals), their Asset assessment, interventions received
and outcomes, in particular recidivism and changes to dynamic
risk scores. As part of this they will also be looking at the
cost effectiveness of each intervention in relation to reduction
in risk and recidivism. The study includes 30 YOTs to ensure a
representative samples that will enable us to do further sophisticated
sub group analysis regarding differences between outcomes for
different groups per intervention. This study is due to report
in autumn 2010.
CUSTODY RATES
AND "CUSP"
OF CUSTODY
CASES
Request for information about local levels of
custody use and additional information about work on "cusp
of custody" cases (relates to Question 197 at our evidence
session)
26. The table showing the proportion of
custodial population from each YOT area referred to at our evidence
session is copied in Annex A below. This does not provide information
about the proportion of the general population of young people
that received custody but gives an indication of the range of
young people in custody from each area. Clearly the variations
between different areas will relate to relative local populations
and local crime rates but other factors may also be involved.
27. As noted in our original evidence session
information about the proportionate use of custodial sentences
and remands in each YOT area is published by the Sentencing Guidelines
Council based on data provided by YOTs via the YJB. (Prior to
the SGC publishing this type of information it was published by
the YJB) The January 2008 version of the publication, including
the specific section on youth justice disposals, can be found
at http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/News08_TheSentence.pdf
28. The proportionate use of custodial sentences
for young people will also form part of the information published
under the national indicator set for local government and its
partners in England.
29. At our evidence session we referred
to a "cusp of custody" exercise carried out with sentencers.
This was not a formal project on its own but an exercise undertaken
as part of wider training delivered by the YJB and Judicial Studies
Board for new district judges sitting in the youth court. The
exercise involved looking at "cusp" offence case studies
and exploring the views of the sentencers involved and what factors
were behind their views including what was needed to have confidence
in YOT recommendations on community sentences. As noted, there
was a large degree of difference as to what was the most appropriate
sentence for the cases used in the exercise. YJB continues to
be involved in the training programme hosted by the JSB for new
judges and for annual continuation training for full time youth
court judges and discussions around the custody threshold form
just one part of the training.
30. Related to this YJB has commissioned
an independent study of sentencing decisions made by courts, identifying
the factors behind decisions to use custody as opposed to community
sentences. The research builds on existing research which showed
geographical variation in the rates of sentencing young people
to custody. The aims of the study included investigating reasons
for decisions in borderline "cusp" cases, understanding
any differences between sentences made by magistrates, district
judges and crown court judges and establishing the views of sentencers
on making custodial or community sentences (The research involves
a sample of 62 sentencers across 16 YOT areas). The research is
in the process of being finalised and we will be able to share
it with the committee as soon as it is published. It is expected
to highlight a wide range of different factors that were reported
by sentencers to encourage or discourage the use of custody in
cusp cases.
31. Related to this work is the proposal
for the SGC to develop specific sentencing guidelines for sentencing
young people alongside the introduction of the Youth Rehabilitation
Order and YJB views this as an important piece of work.
YOTS AND
CHILDREN'S
SERVICES
Request to clarify the source of the point made
at our evidence session about the current line management structures
for YOTs and to let the committee know of any research into the
relationship between YOTs and Children's Trusts. (Related to Question
207 at our evidence session)
32. As noted in our evidence session around
85% of YOT managers are line managed within children's services.
This relates to day to day management as opposed to the broader
strategic oversight by multi-agency YOT management boards. The
active involvement of multi-agency boards is seen by the YJB as
critical to the effectiveness of YOTs.
33. The source for the figure came from a YJB
survey of YOTs during the work on preparing the Youth Crime Action
Plan. The figure is based on returns from over 90 of the YOTs
in England and Wales. In terms of this line management, as opposed
to the nature of the YOT management board arrangements, an internal
YJB analysis showed no significant variation in performance related
to the line management arrangements.
34. The YJB has commissioned some research into
the emerging relationship between YOTs and Children's Trusts in
order to inform our work. The interim report is available on the
YJB website at http://www.yjb.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1E7C427C-4A70-4EF6-83B7-EAE9E1193CB7/0/20060803UpdatedNCBInterimReport_2_.pdf
35. There have been some delays but we hope
to publish the final report shortly. It is expected to reinforce
the view that it is critical that YOTs effectively span both criminal
justice and children's services and developing effective partnership
arrangements with Children's Trusts can be very beneficial. However,
it is expected to note that given the wide range of local arrangements
for crime reduction, youth justice and children's services, including
the still evolving nature of Children's Trusts, it is unlikely
that a one size fits all approach to local arrangements will work
and therefore it is better to focus on a set of key factors for
establishing good local partnership arrangements. We are hopeful
that the proposals set out in the Youth Crime Action Plan will
help to support this.
COSTS OF
SECURE ESTABLISHMENTS
Request for information about the range of costs
per year per custodial establishment and the YJB's position on
commissioning. (Related to question 210 at our evidence session)
36. The Committee has requested the range
of costs per secure establishment per year. Figures are set out
below.
Prison Service establishments as of April
2008
|
| Total cost to the YJB of allPrison Service YOIestablishments per year (£m)
| The range in costs perestablishment per year (£m)
|
|
| Young males establishments | £134.4m
| £5.8m to £19.1m
|
| Young females establishments | £8.9m
| £2.0m to £2.7m |
|
— The cost to the YJB of commissioning includes
amounts paid to the Prison Service, Learning and Skills Council,
(some) Primary Care Trust and NOMs.
— The ranges in cost per establishment given is
closely linked to the range in the number of places in each establishment
commissioned (from 112 to 360 places for young males).
— The range of cost per place does also vary for
places in enhanced units designed to provide a regime for long
term sentenced young people.
— Young males and Young female establishments have
been separated as they are significantly different in terms of
size and regime and are funded in slightly different ways.
Secure Children's Homes and Secure Training Centres
as of April 2008
|
| Total cost to YJB of allSCH or STC establishmentsper year (£m)
| The range in costs perestablishment per year (£m)
|
|
| Secure Children's Homes | £45.9m
| £0.6m to £6.4m |
| Secure Training Centre | £55.8m
| £9.1m to £16.1m
|
|
— Again the variation in the price per year will
be related to the number of places commissioned in each establishment
(Secure Children's Homes range from three to 34 places per year
commission by the YJB).
37. In terms of the approach YJB would take to decommissioning
individual establishments if there was a significant reduction
in demand for secure places the priorities for YJB's commissioning
strategy and the principles we are seeking to apply were set out
in our secure estate strategy. A key element of this is the continuing
development of an entirely discrete estate separate from adult
provision and the priority areas to decommission would therefore
be those YOIs on shared sites with young adults. As noted in our
original written submission YJB has a secure accommodation capital
development programme which is seeking to improve or reconfigure
the estate we commission based on the principles set out in our
strategy. This process has looked at the regional configuration
of the estate and seeking to more closely align it with demand
alongside the continuing development of a discrete estate.
38. In general terms it is worth noting that increases
in YJB expenditure on commissioning of secure placements has to
a large extent been driven by developments to improve regimes,
including the provision of education, substance misuse and safeguarding
services, and through the commissioning of enhanced places.
QUESTION ON
THE FUNDING
OF INTENSIVE
SUPERVISION AND
SURVEILLANCE AND
THE INTENSIVE
FOSTERING REQUIREMENT
UNDER THE
NEW YOUTH
REHABILITATION ORDER
39. The full implementation details of the Youth Rehabilitation
Order are still in development. In terms of the Intensive Supervision
and Surveillance requirement, funding currently ring fenced for
the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme can be used
to fund ISS requirements on its implementation. The YJB does believe
that there will be transitional costs for the introduction of
the YRO more generally in order to meet the likely demand for
requirements from the courts and in order to maximise the impact
of reducing demand for custody. (Clearly there is a time lag
before any savings from reductions in the use of custody can be
realised and used to reinvest in the delivery of community sentences
and there is not a straight place-for-place transfer due to the
relative inflexibilities of decommissioning custodial places.
Individual places cannot be decommissioned easily and decommissioning
generally requiring units or whole establishments to be decommissioned.)
40. In terms of Intensive Fostering the future funding will
be subject to evaluation of the Intensive Fostering pilots and
future funding discussions within government. The Children's Plan
and Youth Crime Action Plan have both indicated support for this
type of approach and the funding for pilot intensive fostering
places has been extended through additional DCSF funding.
QUESTION ON
YJB'S VIEW
OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S
YOUTH CRIME
ACTION PLAN
AND OTHER
AREAS WHERE
REINVESTMENT MAY
BE ACHIEVED
41. The YJB welcomed the Youth Crime Action Plan and
its "triple track" approach emphasising better and earlier
preventative work, support and challenge to the families and children
at greatest risk of long term problem behaviour, alongside enforcement
and punishment. Some of the proposals when implemented may help
shift the focus to earlier intervention and more comprehensive
intervention prior to the point that young people receive custodial
sentences.
42. We welcome proposals to help divert young people form
the criminal justice system while ensuring there is still effective
intervention when necessary. Proposals such as ensuring there
are proper assessments of young people when they are excluded
from school, increasing parenting and family support, improved
local authority involvement in the system including responsibility
for education services and involvement in resettlement provision
should all contribute.
43. In terms of seeking to reduce the use of custody
we welcome the consultation on proposals to make the costs of
custody more visible, having a formal review process when young
people go into custody for the first time, the promotion of alternatives
to custody and investigating how to change the financial incentives
around the use of custody including charging the full cost of
court ordered secure remands. We look forward to seeing the results
of the consultation on these proposals.
44. In general terms, it will be critical that effective
arrangements are developed between children's services and YOTs
and that there are effective arrangements for continuing support
and intervention when young people come to the end of youth justice
disposals when there are continuing needs.
45. Other potential areas for cost saving and reinvestment,
that are touched on in the Youth Crime Action plan, include more
police investment in earlier intervention and work helping to
identify children at risk and the proposals for regional or consortia
commissioning of resettlement services which the YJB will seek
to take forward.
46. In terms of our overall view on the Youth Crime Action
Plan, we are in the process of finalising a formal response to
the consultation questions on the plan and will provide a copy
to the Committee when it is completed.
| 
