The Reformed Youth Justice System in England and Wales Chris Wright Head of Performance – Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

The Reformed Youth Justice System in England and Wales

Chris WrightHead of Performance – Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales 2

Content

The reform process The role of the Youth Justice Board Youth Offending Teams – multi-agency

partnerships Structured Assessment Performance management Impact


The Reforms

Misspent Youth - 1996 Reform Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Re-organised services Structured pre-court interventions Choice of sentences Speed and engagement Choice of intervention Performance management


Statutory Principal Aim

The principal statutory aim of the youth justice system:

“The prevention of offending by children and young people”

Crime and Disorder Act


Elements of the new arrangements


Organisation

Local Youth Offending Teams Established by local authorities 5-service partnerships Common objectives and culture National Youth Justice Board Standards, drives delivery Home Office – law and policy


Pre-court

Reprimand, Final Warning (replacing multiple cautioning) Police –Yot interface 50% of throughput (c.80,000 disposals per annum) Interventions, restorative justice Court at third offence


Courts

Youth court Speed – the Persistent Young Offender

Pledge - PYO (Tackling delay) Engagement Crown Court


Sentences/Interventions

Reparation and Action Plan Orders Attendance Centres Community sentences Intensive Supervision and Surveillance (tagging) 2 part custody – the Detention and Training

Order; (Yot lead) Referral Orders (Restorative Justice Panel –

comprising community volunteers)


The structural arrangements for the reformed system


The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

Established by 1998 Crime and Disorder Act Independent non-departmental government body Up to 12 Board members and executive Advises Home Secretary on the operation of the

YJS Monitors the operation of the YJS


The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (cont’d)

Awards grants in the pursuance of best practice

Commission and purchase secure residential places

Commission research and disseminate effective practice

Place young people into secure accommodation


Department for Education and Skills

DEPT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

Department of Health

YOUTH JUSTICEBOARD(NDPB)COURTS

LOCAL AUTHORITYCHIEF EXECUTIVE

YOUTH OFFENDING TEAMS (YOTS)

154 – LOCAL FOCUS

SOCIAL SERVICES

POLICE

PROBATION EDUCATION

HEALTH

CUSTODIAL PROVIDERS•PRISON SERVICE•LOCAL AUTHORITY SECURE•INDEPENDENT SECTOR

National and local accountabilities

HOME OFFICE (CORRECTIONAL SERVICES)Welsh

Assembly


Local Structure

Local Authority Youth Offending Teams (Yots)

Multi-agency teams: Including Police, Probation, Health, Education and Social Services

Overseen by Partnership management boards

Links to other statutory and community agencies


Local Structure (Cont’d)

Locally funded with additional national YJB grants

Responsible for the planning and provision of youth justice services


Resources for Yots 2004-2005

Police 9.6%

Probation 7.6%

Social Services 40.9%Education 5.8%

Health 4.8%

Local Authority Chief Executive 10.3%

Youth Justice Board 21.1%


Assessment


Structured Assessment - Asset

Comprehensiveness Consistency Quality Openness Resource allocation Develop evidence base Measure the impact of supervision


Key requirements for Asset

Appropriate for offenders aged 10-17For use at different points in YJ systemIdentify key risk factorsProvide a score to predict re-offendingMeasure change over timeAssess risk of serious harmHighlight issues for further assessment


ASSET

takes into account static (unchangeable) factors and dynamic factors which help identify targets for intervention

includes criminogenic and welfare needs

identifies problems and positive factors

combines numeric element with emphasis on evidence for decisions


Stages at which Asset is used in the Youth Justice System

Final Warnings

Court Bail/Remands

Referral Orders

Pre Sentence Reports/SSIs

Mid Order (ISSPs, DTOs)

End of Order (all orders)

Final Warning Asset (short)

Bail Asset (short)

Core Asset Profile

RO Panel

APOsACOsSOs

CPOsCPROsDTOsS53/92 ‘What do YOU think?’


ASSET - Purposes

An aid to professional judgement An aid to case management An aid to the development of knowledge An aid to the management of resources

ASSET is a tool for use - not a substitute for professional judgement or simply a

paper exercise


Components of ASSETCore Profile

Offending Career

LivingArrange-

ments

Neigh-bourhood

Family &personal

EducationEmploy-

ment

Motivation

Attitudes tooffending

ThinkingBehaviour

Perceptionself /

others

Emotional/MentalHealth Physical

health

Lifestyle

SubstanceUse

Offending behaviour


Positive Factors

Strong/stable relationships with adults Education/work enhances confidence Friends not involved in offending Positive and constructive use of spare time Self efficacy Having goals and ambitions and life aims Opportunity for “turning points” Resilience Available help and support


Indicators of Vulnerability and Self-harm

Could the young person be vulnerable as a result of the behaviour of others?

Could the young person be vulnerable as a result of other events or circumstances?

Could the young person be vulnerable as a result of his/her own behaviour?

Could the young person be at risk of self-harm or suicide?

What are the protective factors that might reduce his/her vulnerability and the risk of self-harm


Indicators of Serious Harm to Others

Evidence of previous serious harmful behaviour Indicators of intentions to harm Potentially significant other behaviour (e.g. cruelty

to animals)

April 20, 2023Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

Were these factors linked to past offending - are they more or less relevant now?

Direct or indirect link Always relevant to offending or only on certain

occasions Is the effect on offending behaviour immediate

or over a longer period Will it lead to offending by itself or only in

association?

Consider the following:

April 20, 2023Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

Not associated at all

Slight, occasional, limited, indirect

Moderate but definite

Quite a strongly associated, normallya direct link, relevant to most types /occasions of offending

Very strongly associated. Clear direct link, dominant factor


Interventions


Effective Practice -interventions

Evidence base Thematic approach Key Elements of effective practice (15) Quality Assurance process (Yot self-assessment

and YJB validation) Measure compliance – practitioners, managers

and strategic partners Improvement plans Revise evidence base


Identify interventions that are effective in addressing

risk factors through research and monitoring

Promote the application of effective interventions

through grants, practice guidance, and learning

programmes

Monitor the performance of the youth justice system to identify gaps in effective

practice and emerging best practice

Deliver support and resources to address gaps in performance


Performance Management

An approach towards continuous improvement


Yot performance framework

Youth Justice

Plan

Youth Justice

Plan

Youth Justice

Plan

The different components of the Youth Justice Board’s performance framework are intended to ensure that the Board’s corporate aims and objectives for the youth justice system are delivered


Anti-social behaviour &

youth nuisance

PPOs: Prevent & Deter

DIP measures: drug testing &

treatment

Robbery / street crime

reduction

Anti-social behaviour &

youth nuisance

PPOs: Prevent & Deter

DIP measures: drug testing &

treatment

Robbery / street crime

reduction

Reduction in permanent exclusions

Accommodation stability for looked after

children

Reduction in the proportion

of 16-18 NEETs

Early identification of at risk young people (CAF)

Reduction in permanent exclusions

Accommodation stability for looked after

children

Reduction in the proportion

of 16-18 NEETs

Early identification of at risk young people (CAF)

Youth Justice

Plan

Youth Justice

Plan

Youth Justice

Plan

Yots are also influenced by other performance frameworks


Yot Assessment Framework – using a basket of measures

Youth Justice

Plan

Youth Justice

Plan

Youth Justice

Plan

Performance Weighting

EPQA

Improvement

12.5%

General

5%

EPQA

12.5%

KPI

Performance

20%

National

Standards

25%

KPI

Improvement 10%

Recidivism

15%


Underlying drivers of Yot performance

Performance

Resources• Staff recruitment and retention• Adequacy of resourcing for workload• Range and quality of programmes

Local context • Volume and risk of offenders• Deprivation• Infrastructure of services (rural)[Local context influences performance but is unlikely to change in the short-term]

Partnership Working• Financial and operational support for

Yot performance

Governance and

LeadershipPerformance and Quality Systems

Performance

People and Organisation• Recruitment and retention• Performance management• Training and skills• Yot organisational structure

• Effectiveness of performance management – 13 indicators/EPQA

• Accuracy and value of data• Ownership of targets by staff• Internal administration

•Composition and operation of steering group

•Position within local authority•Links with other strategic bodies

•Leadership


Improver?

Progress on underlying drivers now needs to feed through into improved performance

Struggler?

Is there a credible improvement strategy in place with senior buy-in?

Star?

Strong performance and foundations

Concerns?

Performance improvement is unstable or weaknesses emerging that may hit performance?

Need an in-depth understanding of performance to target improvement effort

High

High

Low Performance

Cap

acit

y a

nd

Cap

ab

ilit

y

KPI data


Outcomes


The Earlier You Intervene the Better….

No. Recidivism Pre Court 74,000 35% First Tier 48,000 58% Second Tier 28,000 74% Custody 8,000 73%


Main Findings from Yot recidivism cohorts Consistency in overall results over time.

Re-offending After 24 Months

2000 2001 2002

Pre-Court 34.3% 34.0% 35.4%

First – Tier 56.6% 57.1% 57.7%

Comm-Pens 70.0% 69.4% 73.8%

Custody 69.9% 71.5% 72.7%

Total 47.8% 48.2% 50.0%

N = 16439 18074 17869


A success story?

Still much progress to be made but:

156 Yots established A model for public sector service delivery (Audit

Commission 2004) By 2002 the re-offending rate for young offenders

had dropped by 7.4% compared with 1997 Progressing towards achieving 80% of youth

justice workforce having benefited from National Qualification Framework


But!

Very high use of custody (currently c. 3,000) Re-offending levels slipping back towards 1997

figures Constantly changing service delivery environment Need to maintain focus on youth crime prevention

and reduction


Thank You

www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk

Documents

The Reformed Youth Justice System in England and Wales Chris Wright Head of Performance – Youth Justice Board for England and Wales