early youth interventions - cjini · early youth interventions an inspection of the contribution...
TRANSCRIPT
July 2012
Early YouthInterventions
An inspection of the contribution the criminaljustice agencies in Northern Ireland make topreventing children and young people from
entering the criminal justice system
i
Early YouthInterventionsAn inspection of the contribution the criminal justiceagencies in Northern Ireland make to preventingchildren and young people from entering the criminaljustice system
July 2012
Laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly under Section 49(2) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, (as amended by paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 13 to The Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Devolution of Policing and Justice Functions) Order2010) by the Department of Justice.
iii
Contents
List of abbreviations iv
Chief Inspector’s Foreword v
Executive Summary vii
Recommendation x
Section 1: Inspection Report
Chapter 1 Introduction 3
Chapter 2 Strategy and Governance 15
Chapter 3 Delivery 25
Chapter 4 Outcomes 39
Section 2: Appendices
Appendix 1 Methodology 46
Appendix 2 Terms of Reference 49
Appendix 3 Extract from Graham Allen MP’s report ‘Early interventions: 53Smart investment, massive savings, the second independent report to Her Majesty’s Government’ on early interventions in Northern Ireland
iv
List of abbreviations
C4EO Centre for Excellence and Outcomes
CASE Citizenship and Safety Education Programme
CJI Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland
NIPS Northern Ireland Prison Service
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OFMDFM The Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister
PBNI Probation Board for Northern Ireland
PSNI Police Service of Northern Ireland
UK United Kingdom
UNOCINI Understanding the Needs of Children in Northern Ireland
YJA Youth Justice Agency
v
Chief Inspector’s Foreword
Early intervention can be described as the policies and programmes which are aimed at tacklingthe problems emerging for children and young people and their families most at risk. There isclear evidence to show that channelling funds to young children is likely to generate morepositive changes than spending money on an older child. Many of the problems that contributeto criminal behaviour are already formed long before the young person reaches the criminaljustice system.
A snap-shot study on the backgrounds of young people detained in the Woodlands JuvenileJustice Centre in November 2011 shows over a third were ‘looked-after’ or voluntaryaccommodated children within the care system; 82% were identified as coming from a singleparent family and 34% had experienced domestic violence in the home environment. In relationto educational attainment, 38% of the sample had a statement of learning needs whilst 14% had a recognised learning disability; 80% of the sample had issues relating to school exclusion orabsconding from school. The vast majority of young people (92%) had misused drugs or alcohol,while 32% had self-harmed.
The profile of young offenders as those coming from dysfunctional families who have becomedetached from the formal education system, and who have developed chaotic lifestyles abusingdrugs and alcohol is depressingly familiar. While the problems are well known, and the benefit ofyouth interventions are well understood, the practical difficulties of ensuring that this determinesthe allocation of resources and focus of work across the various Northern Ireland Executivedepartments are enormous.
Inspectors could not get a complete picture of the number, types and funding of earlyintervention programmes available in Northern Ireland. They found there was a myriad ofproviders, target participants, silo funding streams and delivery and evaluation methodologies. In relation to the situation in Northern Ireland generally, and the justice system specifically, therewas a lack of co-ordination, a risk of duplication and a lack of evaluation which made it difficult toassess effectiveness and value for money. What is clear is that for many young people it was acase of ‘too little too late’. All too often interventions attempt to deal with social problems thatare already well entrenched. This is not only ineffective in helping those young people with issuesthat contribute to criminal behaviour, it is also more expensive. The path to the youth justicesystem is a well-trodden one, yet we as a society seem incapable of helping some young peopleto move off it.
Ultimately the question of whether to fully commit to an early interventions approach is one forMinisters. There needs to be consensus and co-operation between those responsible for healthand social care, education, criminal justice, social development, employment and learning and theenvironment. If there is a desire for a move to early interventions then a joined up system ofgovernance, accountability, funding, delivery, evaluation of outcomes and ultimately a shared vision
vi
of success is essential. This report calls for a clear commitment to such an approach. Thechallenge is immense. The alternative is a continued failure, as a society, for our most vulnerablechildren.
This inspection was led by Rachel Lindsay and Dr Ian Cameron of CJI. I am also grateful toShane Gorman, who was on placement with CJI at the time of the inspection, for his assistancewith the background research for this inspection. I wish to thank all those involved in theinspection process, particularly those children and young people who spoke to Inspectors andthose in the voluntary and community sector who work with them. I would also like toacknowledge the work of the Youth Justice Agency (YJA) Statistics and Research Branch forpreparing background information on young people in custody in the Juvenile Justice Centre tosupport the inspection.
Dr Michael MaguireChief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern IrelandJuly 2012
vii
Executive Summary
There has been a growing level of support in recent years, both in the United Kingdom (UK) andinternationally, for the early intervention approach. The purported benefits of early interventionshave been well documented in terms of social, emotional, educational and financial outcomes.Early interventions have been suggested as critical in order to ensure all children are ready forschool, ready for work and ready for life (Allen, 2011a1).
This inspection aimed to examine and assess early youth intervention arrangements across thecriminal justice system in Northern Ireland. The contribution of criminal justice was viewed asonly part of a holistic system with responsibilities also lying with other Executive departments.
There was no specific strategy in existence in relation to early interventions in Northern Ireland,however, the Children and Young People’s 10-year Strategy was the over-riding plan in this area.The responsibility for this sat with the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister(OFMDFM) with the Junior Ministers chairing the Ministerial Sub-Committee for children andyoung people’s issues. There had been limited co-ordination until 2011 of the work of Executivedepartments in this area, with the Early Interventions Programme for the Prevention of Offendingas one exception. The Junior Ministers were working towards developing a more joined-upapproach across Executive departments and were supportive of the early interventions model.
The Health and Social Care Board had been in the process of setting up the Children and YoungPeople’s Strategic Partnership to address this lack of co-ordination. The Strategic Partnershipincluded representatives from across statutory agencies and the voluntary and community sector.It aimed to operate at regional, area and locality level to co-ordinate service provision andevaluation to deliver against the indicators in the 10-year Strategy.
Although it was too early to assess the impact of the Strategic Partnership it demonstrated thatthere was commitment at Chief Executive level to achieving a more co-ordinated approach tochildren’s services. However there were some concerns raised with the architecture of theStrategic Partnership for example, in relation to the lack of accountability and large membership.In addition, there were already some agencies involved in activities outside of the Partnership thatcould potentially lead to duplication of effort.
Inspectors could not get a complete picture from interviewees of the number, types and fundingof early intervention programmes available in Northern Ireland. There were a myriad ofproviders, target participants, funding streams and delivery and evaluation methodologies utilisedin the projects that Inspectors were aware of. Inspectors were conscious however that therewere many more community projects for children and young people receiving statutory fundingthat they were not made aware of during the inspection. The evaluation report for the EarlyIntervention for the Prevention of Offending Programme illustrated the potential for duplication.In the Programme almost half of young people had one agency other than the referrer engaged
1 Allen, G. (2011a). Early interventions: The next steps, an independent report to Her Majesty’s Government. London: Cabinet Office.
viii
with them, and 28% were engaged with two agencies other than the referrer. This highlights theoverlaps between agencies working with children, although it is also a reflection of the complexneeds of some of these young people.
The interventions delivered which had an input from criminal justice included the participation ofvery young children with no justice involvement (for example Roots of Empathy), educationalprogrammes in secondary schools, projects to prevent offending and those specifically targetingyoung people who had offended or were coming to the attention of police (for example ChildIntervention Panels). The exact nature of the criminal justice input varied but included directreferrals, programme delivery, funding and management or oversight.
The level of criminal justice input to these types of interventions was of considerable debateamongst stakeholders. The overriding view was that, whilst agencies should have some input interms of being able to refer young people or providing funding for projects, the justice sectorshould engage in a non-direct way in order to avoid stigmatisation or bringing young people intothe criminal justice system further. Some stakeholders suggested that a family support model wasmore appropriate where solutions were based in communities rather than imposed on families bystatutory agencies.
There was a limited evaluation of outcomes into early intervention projects, particularly in the long-term. The Early Interventions Programme had indicated some initial successes butdifferences in evaluation methods made comparisons difficult. In addition long-term follow-upwas needed to fully identify the benefits of the projects. The evaluation of outcomes for someprojects was being considered by the YJA and in general would form part of the remit of theStrategic Partnership, but this had not yet progressed.
In light of this lack of evaluation it was virtually impossible for Inspectors to assess theeffectiveness of early interventions undertaken to date and the impact of the contribution of the criminal justice agencies. Without effective evaluation over the longer-term referrals will continue to be made to projects with no conception of outcomes or success.
Because of the lack of co-ordination there was a risk of duplication of funding for projects andthe lack of evaluation made it difficult to assess effectiveness and value for money. On the face of it however, the costs of addressing issues at an early stage through early interventions are farless than the costs of later criminal justice or social care solutions such as custody or securecare. Again, rigorous evaluation is needed to demonstrate the cost-benefit of the earlyintervention approach in Northern Ireland as it has in other jurisdictions.
During this inspection, Inspectors encountered a number of issues, which are outlined above, inrelation to a limited overall strategy for justice agencies, a lack of co-ordination betweenExecutive departments, a cluttered landscape of provision leading to potential duplications and alack of evaluation of outcomes. Inspectors could have made a number of recommendationsaimed at making incremental changes in practice within single agencies which addressed isolatedissues. However, these individual recommendations would not address the fundamental issue,which is that the implementation of the early interventions approach requires a change in
ix
direction encompassing all areas of Government policy and practice in relation to children and young people. In light of this need for transformational change, Inspectors were minded to make only one recommendation from which developments in practice should flow. Thisrecommendation is in keeping with the recommendations of the Youth Justice Review Team inSeptember 2011.
The decision to move to an early interventions approach is not an easy one. The ultimate impactmay take several years to become apparent and the costs may need to be shifted from otherservices, leading to a shortfall until the benefits are fully realised. Ultimately the question ofwhether to fully commit to an early interventions approach is one for Ministers and there needsto be consensus between those responsible for health and social care, education and criminaljustice and to some extent also with those responsible for social development, employment andlearning and the environment.
If there is a desire to move to the early interventions approach then a joined-up system ofgovernance, accountability, funding, delivery and evaluation of outcomes is essential and this needscommitment at the highest level. Only when there is a shared vision about adopting an earlyinterventions approach will this translate to strategy and policy and ultimately operationalprocedures.
If this shared vision is agreed at the Executive, Inspectors only make one recommendation: thatthere is a clear commitment to the early interventions approach from the Ministerialrepresentatives on the Ministerial Sub-Committee for Children and Young People. In delivering against this commitment we recommend that:• the approach to early interventions is based on an agreed, long-term, strategicframework with an appropriately structured Children and Young People’s StrategicPartnership that is fully endorsed by Ministers of all relevant departments;
• all decisions around identification of needs, delivery, funding and evaluation ofearly interventions should be taken by the Strategic Partnership; and
• the decisions of the Strategic Partnership should be made within a governancestructure which is accountable to the Office of the First Minister and Deputy FirstMinister.
x
Recommendation
Inspectors recommend that there is a clear commitment to the earlyinterventions approach from the Ministerial representatives on the MinisterialSub-Committee for Children and Young People. In delivering against thiscommitment we recommend that:• the approach to early interventions is based on an agreed, long-term, strategicframework with an appropriately structured Children and Young People’sStrategic Partnership that is fully endorsed by Ministers of all relevantdepartments;
• all decisions around identification of needs, delivery, funding and evaluation ofearly interventions should be taken by the Strategic Partnership; and
• the decisions of the Strategic Partnership should be made within a governancestructure which is accountable to the Office of the First Minister and DeputyFirst Minister.
1
Inspection Report
1Section
1
2
3
1.1 In recent years there has been a growingrecognition of the value of earlyinterventions and investment in the livesof children and young people as a moreeffective and preventative approach,which is not only focussed on the rightsof the child but provides better valuefor money and improved outcomes for children, their families and society as a whole. A number of reports inrecent years, both external to andcommissioned by Government, havepointed to the benefits of earlyintervention and called for a longer-term strategy in relation to preventionof offending and support for families.
1.2 Reports such as those authored byGraham Allen MP in 2011
2&3
commissioned by the UK CoalitionGovernment have highlighted the need for a new approach to earlyinterventions, and the limited costs ofthe early intervention approach versusthe traditional approach of dealing withissues as they arise. These reports comeon the back of a plethora of researchand reviews by both Government and
Introduction
CHAPTER 1:
non-government organisations (such asThe Howard League of Penal Reform,Her Majesty’s Inspectorate ofConstabulary, the Ministry of Justice andAction for Children) all pointing to thebenefit of early interventions. It is alsoan issue that the devolved administrationshave focussed on. For example, theNorthern Ireland Assembly Researchand Library Services produced aresearch paper on Preventative Spendingin January 2011 and the work of theViolence Reduction Unit in Glasgow has been used as a national centre ofexpertise in Scotland since 2006.
1.3 The opening statement to the secondreport of Graham Allen MP3 is co-signedby five prominent authors who hadrecently published reports in the area of early youth issues and interventions.The statement reads ‘We have allrecently conducted reviews for HerMajesty’s Government in this field and whilewe agree on so much, we would like toparticularly underline that all five of usstrongly support this Report’s emphasis onthe cost-effectiveness of early intervention.
‘I believe that Early Intervention represents the most fundamental investment in the human capital of our country’.
(Graham Allen MP, Early interventions: Smart investment, massive savings, the second independent report to Her Majesty’s Government.)
2 Allen, G. (2011a). Early interventions: The next steps, an independent report to Her Majesty’s Government. London: Cabinet Office. 3 Allen, G. (2011b). Early interventions: Smart investment, massive savings, the second independent report to Her Majesty’s Government. London: Cabinet
Office.
4
We feel it is vital that the government nowbegins the groundwork to enable our latereaction culture to be transcended by anearly intervention one. Our collective viewis that the moment for a serious, sustainedprogramme of early intervention, which ispromoted inside and outside government,has arrived.’
What is early intervention?1.4 In his first report4 Graham Allen MP
defines early intervention as referring to‘the general approaches, and the specificpolicies and programmes, which help to givechildren aged 0-3 the social and emotionalbedrock they need to reach their fullpotential; and to those which help olderchildren become the good parents oftomorrow’. He also provides a usefulbreakdown of the three main areas. He refers to three broad types of earlyinterventions; firstly to help children tobe ready for school (for primary school;the foundation years of 0-5), secondly tobe ready for work (as they leavesecondary school or university) andthirdly to be ready for life (to becomeloving and nurturing parentsthemselves).
1.5 A practice guide on early interventionspublished by the Centre for Excellenceand Outcomes (C4EO)5 provides thefollowing definition ‘intervening early andas soon as possible to tackle problemsemerging for children, young people andtheir families or with a population most atrisk of developing problems. Earlyintervention may occur at any point in achild or young person’s life’. Thishighlights the fact that early interventiondoes not just relate to children of pre-school or primary school age, but that it
can span the whole age range from birth(or in some circumstances pre-birth) toadulthood.
1.6 Practical examples of early interventionsvary widely in terms of the ages of thechild or young person targeted, the aims of the programme and whether it is auniversal or needs-based programme.Examples therefore include:• pre-natal programmes working with
low-income, at-risk first-time mothers(e.g. the Nurse Family Partnership);
• programmes to strengthen parentalcompetencies for pre-schoolers (e.g. Incredible Years);
• programmes designed to supportsocial and emotional development inprimary school children (e.g. Roots ofEmpathy, Promoting AlternativeThinking Strategies);
• education programmes to supporteducational improvement (e.g. EarlyLiteracy and Learning Model);
• family-based interventions to enhanceprotective factors and reduce risk ofoffending behaviour (e.g. FunctionalFamily Therapy, ‘Triple P’ PositiveParenting Programme); and
• programmes to target older childrenwith particular behaviours that needaddressing such as alcohol or drug-taking issues (e.g. Life Skills Training).
1.7 The second interim report of the MunroReview of Child Protection6 discussedthe need for universal services for allchildren and for early interventions andspecialist services for some. Munrostates that “early identification andprovision of help is in the child’s bestinterests and multiagency services whichdeliver support for families are vital in
4 Allen, G. (2011a). Early interventions: The next steps, an independent report to Her Majesty’s Government. London: Cabinet Office. 5 Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children and Young People’s Services (C4EO) (2010). Grasping the nettle: early intervention for children,
families and communities. London: C4EO.6 Munro, E. (2011). The Munro Review of Child Protection: Interim Report 2: The Child’s Journey. London: Department for Education.
promoting children’s well�being.” TheReview endorsed efforts made toimprove family support services in thecommunity such as Sure Start Children’sCentres and the health visitor service. In addition the review referenced theannouncement by the Secretary of Statefor Health in England in October 2010that he would double the number ofplaces on the Family Nurse Partnershipby 2015. It also highlighted theimportant role of supervised volunteersin early support, for example in HomeStart programmes.
The current situation in the UK withregard to early interventions1.8 Graham Allen MP’s first report4 stated
that ‘In spite of its merits, which haveachieved increasing recognition by nationaland local government and the voluntarysector, the provision of successful evidence-based early intervention programmesremains persistently patchy and dogged by institutional and financial obstacles. In consequence, there remains anoverwhelming bias in favour of existingpolicies of late intervention at a time whensocial problems are well-entrenched - eventhough these policies are known to beexpensive and of limited success.’ He calls for a redressing of the imbalancebetween spending on early interventioncompared to later interventions.
1.9 Allen also highlights that theOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)has recently reported that ‘countryspending profiles examined are notconsistent with the theory and evidence onchild well-being. In contrast there is little or no obvious rationale for why so many
governments place the weight of theirspending on late childhood’. The reportcontinues: ‘The OECD goes on to arguethat spending on young children is morelikely to generate more positive changesthan spending on older ones and, indeed, islikely to be fairer to more disadvantagedchildren. But it notes that, in the UK, forevery £100 spent on early childhood (0–5years), £135 is spent on middle childhood(6–11 years) and £148 is spent on latechildhood (12–17 years).’
1.10 A consultation response by The HowardLeague of Penal Reform (2011)7 providesevidence in the criminal justice contextto support this, stating that in Englandand Wales less than 7% of the YouthJustice Board’s budget is spent onprevention and over 61% is spent oncustody.
1.11 In Northern Ireland specific legislationprovides the statutory basis forundertaking such early interventions inorder to prevent offending. Section 53of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act2002 places a statutory duty on the YJAto protect the public by preventing crimeby young people. It states ‘The principalaim of the youth justice system is to protectthe public by preventing offending bychildren.’ Additionally, under TheChildren (Northern Ireland) Order 1995Schedule 2 paragraph 8, the Departmentof Health, Social Services and PublicSafety have a statutory responsibility totake reasonable steps to stop childrengetting involved in crime, specifically ‘toencourage children within the authority’sarea not to commit criminal offences’.
1.12 Graham Allen’s latest report8
5
7 The Howard League for Penal Reform. (2011). Response to Breaking the Cycle: Effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders.London: The Howard League for Penal Reform.
8 Allen, G. (2011b). Early interventions: Smart investment, massive savings, the second independent report to Her Majesty’s Government. London: CabinetOffice.
recommends the setting up of an EarlyIntervention Foundation, independent ofGovernment. He suggests its five initialfunctions might be as follows: • A centre to champion and promote
early intervention. • Improving the evidence base so that
investment is targeted on whatworks.
• Increasing awareness of socialinvestment opportunities in earlyintervention.
• Improving fidelity and developingearly intervention programmes.
• Acting as a source of advice on socialinvestment for early intervention.
In March 2012 the UK Minister of Statefor Children and Families confirmed theGovernment’s intention to procure theEarly Intervention Foundation.9 It hassecured £3.5 million to fund it for twoyears. After this it will become selffinancing.
Why early interventions have an impact1.13 A research paper for the Northern
Ireland Assembly10 outlines evidencewhich suggests that the most effectivepreventative spending is that targeted at the 0-3 early years age group. This is because 95% of a child’s braindevelopment occurs during these years and they are deemed crucial forensuring that children are properlyprepared to start formal education.
1.14 The C4EO practice guide citesresearch which shows that up to 10% of children have a long-term,persistent communication disability, and approximately 50% in socially
disadvantaged areas have significantlanguage delay on entry to school. Itindicates a strong correlation betweencommunication difficulties and lowattainment, mental health issues, pooremployment or training prospects andyouth crime. The guide goes on to saythat ‘with the right support, however, manychildren with language delay go on to catchup with their peers, and those with a pre-school history of persistent disorders thatcan be resolved by the age of 5½, go on toperform within normal limits’. The impactof parental influence is also consideredto be significant, especially for thosewith low levels of literacy and numeracyand confidence, who may requireadditional support to build on theirstrengths and develop their skills.
The economic case for investment inearly interventions1.15 Traditionally the impact of early
interventions has been difficult toevidence. However, it should be notedthat the impact of other criminal justicesolutions have also been hard toevidence, for example, in relation to re-offending rates after a period in custody.A Ministry of Justice report11 regardingyouth justice in England and Walesstates that traditionally, the evidencebase for prevention work has been lessgood than work with offenders. In 2010a joint inspection of youth crime inEngland and Wales was undertakenwhich looked at policing, probation andhealthcare12. The inspection found thatthe significant prevention work takingplace had as its outcome goal, areduction in youth offending or at least areduction in the likelihood of offending.
6
9 See www.parliament.uk10 Northern Ireland Assembly, Research and Library Service. (2011). Preventative spending. Research paper NIAR 19-11. Belfast: Northern Ireland
Assembly. 11 Ministry of Justice (2010). The Youth Justice System in England and Wales: Reducing Offending by Young People. London: The Stationery Office. 12 HMI Constabulary, HMI Probation, Care Quality Commission & Healthcare Inspectorate Wales (2010). A Joint inspection of Youth Crime
Prevention: A Joint Inspection by the HMI Constabulary, HMI Probation, Care Quality Commission and Healthcare Inspectorate Wales. London: HMIC.
However overall, the report stated thatthe inspection found these outcomegoals difficult, if not impossible to assess.
1.16 Some authors have however, tried toquantify the cost of investment in earlyintervention compared to the cost ofinterventions at a later stage, althoughestimates vary. The research report forthe Northern Ireland Assembly13 citesstudies which indicate that for every £1 spent on early years education, £7must be spent to have the same impactin adolescence. James Heckman, theeconomist, estimates that the economicequation is greater; at a ratio of 11:1;therefore for every £1 we spend in earlyyears, before age three, there will be aneed to spend £11 later to get the sameresult14. Other economists support thisview, and some even estimate the ratioas high as 17:1.
1.17 Allen15 also cites a number of researchanalyses which have indicated thereturns for investment in earlyinterventions. One example provided isof an evaluation by the RANDCorporation16 of the Nurse FamilyPartnership (a programme targeted tosupport ‘at-risk’ families by supportingparental behaviour to foster emotionalattunement and confident, non-violentparenting). This estimated that theprogramme provided savings for high-risk families by the time children wereaged 15. These savings, which were
stated to be over five times greater thanthe cost of the programme, came in theform of reduced welfare and criminaljustice expenditures, higher tax revenuesand improved physical and mentalhealth. It is important to note however,that in Allen’s second report17 he alsohighlights the importance of developingearly intervention programmes deliveredoutside the UK to a UK context whichreflect any different social and culturalnorms. This would apply to anydevelopment of programmes inNorthern Ireland.
The costs of inaction1.18 There have been various attempts to
quantify the total costs of inaction inthis area. For example, Action forChildren and the New EconomicsFoundation18 have estimated that withouttheir proposed addition to earlyinvestment, the economy could miss outon returns of £486 billion in the UKover 20 years. This corresponds to£24 billion a year which is equivalent toaround one-fifth of projected healthspending for 2010–11. Costs involved in inaction are summarised as:• cost of children in care;• additional costs of educational
support to those with conductdisorder, special educational needs or behavioural problems in school;
• costs associated with drug andalcohol misuse;
• costs associated with mental health
7
13 Northern Ireland Assembly, Research and Library Service. (2011). Preventative spending. Research paper NIAR 19-11. Belfast: Northern IrelandAssembly.
14 As cited by Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan, Scottish Violence Reduction Unit at the Children 1st Annual Lecture Breaking thecycle of violence on Wednesday 10th December 2008 in Glasgow.
15 Allen, G. (2011a). Early interventions: The next steps, an independent report to Her Majesty’s Government. London: Cabinet Office. 16 Karoly L.A., Kilburn M.R. & Cannon J.S. (2005). Early Childhood Interventions: Proven Results, Future Promise. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation as
cited in Allen, G. (2011b). 17 Allen, G. (2011b). Early interventions: Smart investment, massive savings, the second independent report to Her Majesty’s Government. London: Cabinet
Office.18 Action for Children & New Economics Foundation (2009). Backing the Future: Why Investing in Children is Good for Us All. London: New Economics
Foundation.
8
problems;• productivity lost to the state as a
result of youth unemployment; and• cost of youth crime.
1.19 The Howard League of Penal Reform(2011)19 state ‘The evidence shows thatchildren that end up in the justice systemcome, in the main, from the mostdisadvantaged families and communities,whose lives are frequently characterised bysocial deprivation and abuse’. The reportalso suggests that children who areexposed to ‘the most acute combination of risk factors’ are up to 20 times morelikely to offend than those who are not,which reinforces the need to provideparticularly to those children invulnerable situations.
1.20 The Bromley Briefings Prison Factfilepublished in December 201120 indicatessimilar findings. The report highlightsthat in England and Wales:• 71% of children in custody have been
involved with, or in the care of, socialservices before entering custody;
• 76% of children in custody have anabsent father and 33% an absentmother;
• 86% of boys and 82% of girls surveyedsaid they had at some time beenexcluded from school;
• 25% of children in the Youth JusticeSystem have identified specialeducational needs, 46% are rated asunder-achieving at school and 29% havedifficulties with literacy and numeracy;and
• 75% of all prisoners have a dualdiagnosis (mental health problemscombined with alcohol or drug misuse).
In relation to prisoners interviewed forthe Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction
21
study:• 29% reported having observed
violence in the home and 29%reported experiencing emotional,sexual or physical abuse as a child;
• 37% said that someone in their family (other than themselves) hadbeen found guilty of a non-motoringcriminal offence;
• 42% had been expelled orpermanently excluded from school;and
• 71% reported using drugs in the yearbefore custody (64% in the fourweeks prior to custody) and 22%drank alcohol every day in the fourweeks before custody.
1.21 A report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorateof Prisons in 2011 provided similarfindings. This reported on their annualsurvey of the children and young people(aged 15 to 18) who were held in prisoncustody in England and Wales. Theyanalysed 1,092 responses (responsesfrom 1,052 young men and 40 youngwomen) collected between 1 April 2010and 31 March 2011. The demographicdetails of the young people indicatedthat:• over one quarter of young men
(27%) and over half of young women(55%) said they had spent some timein local authority care;
• 13% of young men and almost aquarter of young women (24%)reported having children;
• 86% of young men and 82% of youngwomen said they had been excluded
19 The Howard League for Penal Reform. (2011). Response to Breaking the Cycle: Effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders.London: The Howard League for Penal Reform.
20 Prison Reform Trust. (2011). Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile: December 2011. London: Prison Reform Trust. 21 Ministry of Justice. (2010). Compendium of reoffending statistics and analysis. As cited in Prison Reform Trust. (2010). Bromley Briefings Prison
Factfile: December 2010. London: Prison Reform Trust.
9
from school. 42% of young men and55% of young women said they were14 years or younger when they lastattended school. 69% of young menand three-quarters of young womensaid that they had truanted fromschool; and
• across the male estate, the KeppelUnit, a specialist unit for vulnerableyoung men, had the highestproportions of young men whoreported being from a Gypsy, Romanyor Traveller background (13%),considered themselves to have adisability (38%), had spent time inlocal authority care (41%), and were14 years or younger when they werelast at school (71%).
1.22 In order to get an indication of theprofile of young people in custody inNorthern Ireland, the Statistics andResearch Branch of the YJA carried outa specific piece of research for CJI.Population snapshots for young peoplein the Juvenile Justice Centre for 1 Apriland 1 September 2011 were selected forthe analysis. In total this yielded asample of 50 young people, 38 whowere on remand, and 12 on sentence.Information was collected from amanual trawl of the YJA assessmentrecords for each young person. Theinformation presented therefore, reliesprimarily on the detail of completionand accuracy of the YJA assessment. The results of this research are includedin Table 1. The findings are very similarto those seen in England and Wales, andhighlight the level of need of youngpeople who enter the custodial system.
The criminal justice context1.23 A key recommendation in The Howard
League report was that for England andWales ‘the most important change shouldbe one of values: children are children firstand offenders second. Addressing theunderlying reasons why children commitcrime should be the priority, rather thanhow to punish them when these needs have not been addressed’. Somecommentators would be of the viewthat a child who ends up in the formalcriminal justice system represents afailure of society to intervene sufficientlyearly and support that child to developto their full potential. When it is takeninto consideration that custody has notbeen shown to be an effective solutionin preventing reoffending (74% of youngpeople released from custody in 2008 inEngland and Wales reoffended withinone year22) there is a clear need forinterventions to prevent young peopleentering into custodial settings.
The costs of youth crime1.24 A report regarding youth justice in
England and Wales published by theMinistry of Justice in 201023 highlightedthat offending by young people causedsignificant costs to society. These costsrelate to the offence, the victims and theoffender. Although they make up only11% of the population above the age ofcriminal responsibility, in 2009 people inthis age group were responsible for 17%of all proven offending in England andWales. The report stated that theft and violent offences are those mostcommonly committed by youngoffenders, accounting for over 40% ofproven offences in 2009-10. Crime iscostly, assuming that young people are
22 Ministry of Justice. (2010). Reoffending of juveniles: Results from the 2008 cohort. London: The Stationery Office. 23 Ministry of Justice. (2010). The Youth Justice System in England and Wales: Reducing Offending by Young People. London: The Stationery Office.
10
First entry to the criminal justice system• In 43 cases information on age of first warning was available. 42% of these had received a
first warning by the age of 13.
Age at first admission to the Juvenile Justice Centre• 70% of the sample were aged 15 or over on date of first admission to the Juvenile Justice
Centre. 20% were aged 14 and the remaining 10% were between 11 and 13.
• 84% of the sample had previous contact with the Probation Board for Northern Ireland(PBNI) or the YJA prior to their first admission to the Juvenile Justice Centre.
Social Services involvement• 34% of the sample were looked-after or voluntary accommodated within the care system.
A further 22% were known to social services.
• 17% had at some stage, been on the child protection register.
Living arrangements• For many of the young people, living arrangements were constantly changing. Only 10%
of the sample were living at home with both birth parents. At least 82% of cases wereidentified as being part of a single parent family, either through separation or death of aparent. At least 12% had little or no contact with their biological father.
• 34% had experienced domestic violence within their home environment.
Sibling/parent offending• This information was not known for two cases. Of the remainder, 17 (35%) had siblings
or parents with an offending history.
• For 48 of the cases information was available in relation to the young persons’ peergroup. 44 of these (92%) were reported to have a peer group who were involved in anti-social behaviour or to be known to the criminal justice system.
Education• Of the 47 cases with a recorded IQ, scores ranged from 84 to 118. The modal score was
106. Of the sample, 57% had an IQ of 100 or above.
• 38% of the sample had a statement of educational needs, whilst 14% had a recognised (or in one case, suspected) learning disability.
Table 1: A snapshot-based study on the backgrounds of young people detained in theWoodlands Juvenile Justice Centre(Prepared by the YJA Statistics & Research Branch November 2011)
11
responsible for 17% of all crime; thereport estimates that youth crime in2009 may have been as much as £8.5-£11 billion.
1.25 The report also stated that overall theyouth justice system in England andWales cost some £800 million in 2009-10. Of this, £306 million (38%) wasspent on custodial places for young
offenders. In Northern Ireland custodialplaces for children and young peoplecosts between £132,904 and £267,991per occupant per year24. In addition thecost of maintaining a child in aresidential care home (albeit that thismay not be in relation to behaviour thatis in conflict with the law) for a year ison average £156,96725. It can be seentherefore that dealing with the issue of
• In 49 cases information was available relating to school attendance. Of these, only 20%were in regular mainstream attendance. The remaining 80% all had issues relating toschool exclusion (suspension and expulsion) or absconding from school. A range ofalternatives to mainstream school was evidenced for these young people, includingAlternative Education Provision, home tuition, education other than at school and specialschool.
Substance misuse• 92% of the sample had misused or were misusing alcohol or drugs. Alcohol misuse was
evident in varying degrees in virtually all of these cases, with cannabis, and ‘blues’(diazepam) also commonly misused.
• In 16% of the cases, one or both parents were misusing alcohol or drugs.
Mental Health• Almost all of the sample have experienced some form of trauma in their lives.
Common examples include:- suicide of family member(s) or friend(s);- history of sexual, physical or emotional abuse;- parental substance misuse;- parental mental health difficulties;- victim of bullying at school and/or in the community; and- victim of paramilitary threats.
• 23% of the sample were diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and afurther 4% were suspected to have the disorder. Other mental health issues were alsoevident to a lesser extent in the sample including depression, conduct disorder, andOppositional Defiance Disorder.
• 32% of the sample had self-harmed.
24 Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (2011). An announced inspection of Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre. Belfast: CJI. 25 Independent Research Solutions (2011). Evaluation of the Early Intervention Programme for the Prevention of Offending 2008-2011. Belfast: Health
and Social Care Board.
12
youth justice has significant costimplications.
The risk factor approach1.26 Professor David Farrington, a leading
academic in criminology, argues thatthere is a need to ‘identify the key riskfactors for offending and implementprevention methods designed to counteractthem’26. Farrington suggests that such anapproach can be used not only toidentify variables to be targeted, but alsoto identify persons to be targeted in anintervention programme. However,there are others that disagree with therisk factor model and suggest that it is‘much more suited to generalisations aboutgroups rather than predictions aboutindividuals’ (Armstrong, 2006)27. A reportfor the Centre for Crime and JusticeStudies28 goes as far as to suggest that‘risk-based approaches to children andyoung people are overly reliant on amisreading of the research base that itself is limited to a relatively narrow set of questions.’
1.27 The 2010 joint inspection of youth crimein England and Wales29 proposed thatrisk and protective factors can begrouped under four broad domains:• the family;• school and work;• lifestyle, neighbourhood and
community; and• self, personal and individual practices.
However, the joint inspection reportalso notes that just because a childpresents several of these risk factors
does not mean that future offending isunavoidable. Whether or not the riskfactor approach is the right one, it isusual that one or more of thesedomains are targeted in earlyintervention programmes. Many wouldargue that a holistic approach should betaken (i.e. including the family in theintervention), rather than dealing withthe child or young person in isolation.
Barriers to the early interventionapproach1.28 There have been several key barriers
highlighted to date in obtaining fullsupport for, and transition to, the earlyintervention. These include the difficultyin demonstrating effective outcomes forthe early intervention approach, theshort-term nature of Governmentstrategy and subsequent funding forprogrammes and the silo mentality of different Government departments,who all have responsibility for earlyintervention. Graham Allen MP, in hisfirst report on early interventions30
described the need for strong leadershipfrom all political parties to overcomethe bias towards reactive activity and toachieve a cultural shift to earlyintervention.
1.29 Allen also points out that ‘the generalabsence of robust evaluation andcomparative data has greatly handicappedthe progress of evidence-based earlyintervention in the UK. Without robustinformation with which to makecomparisons, budget holders and potentialinvestors face the problems of equivalence
26 Farrington, D. (2000). Childhood risk factors and risk-focused prevention. In Maguire, M., Morgan, R. & Reiner, R. (Eds). The Oxford Handbook ofCriminology (3rd ed.) (pp. 602-640). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27 Armstrong, D. (2006). Becoming criminal: the cultural politics of risk. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10 (2).28 Garside, R. (2009). Risky people or risky societies? Rethinking interventions for young adults in transition. London: Centre for Crime and Justice
Studies.29 HMI Constabulary, HMI Probation, Care Quality Commission & Healthcare Inspectorate Wales (2010). A Joint inspection of Youth Crime
Prevention: A Joint Inspection by the HMI Constabulary, HMI Probation, Care Quality Commission and Healthcare Inspectorate Wales. London: HMIC. 30 Allen, G. (2011a). Early interventions: The next steps, an independent report to Her Majesty’s Government. London: Cabinet Office.
13
and accountability for outcomes’. Hestated there was a need for authoritativeevidence about which forms of earlyintervention are most successful, andtheir impact.
1.30 The youth crime joint inspectionidentified that most of the funding foryouth crime prevention projects was of a short-term nature. Inspectorsstated that the challenge for strategicmanagers was to ensure resources weremainstreamed into long-term budgetstreams; with some areas being moresuccessful than others in achieving this.The approaches adopted requiredsignificant partnership agreement andcommitment between the majorpartners, such as children’s services andthe police. The report recommendedthat the Ministry of Justice and theHome Office should ensure that theywork jointly to re-profile the funding foryouth crime prevention work to enablea long-term planning approach to betaken.
1.31 A national evaluation was conducted in2004 of the Youth Justice Board’s crimeprevention projects in England andWales31. It found that funding periods inthe main, tend not to be longer thanthree years. Increasing the length of thefunding period would allow projects todevelop fully, and for a more detailedevaluation of the programmes to beundertaken, which has not generallybeen possible for these programmes.
1.32 Allen also comments that ‘a majoradditional complication is that successfulearly intervention programmes bring savings
to many different agencies. Without pooledbudgets, and agreement from those thatsave from early intervention that they willpay some of the cost, it becomes verydifficult to win the economic case in somecircles.’
1.33 The Youth Justice Board evaluationreport highlighted the need for theeffective development of a programmeto be set within an agreed multi-agencynetwork. It stated that this needed tobe established from the onset with eachcontributing to the nature and structureof the programmes developed.
The CJI inspection1.34 This inspection follows on from a
previous inspection by CJI of YouthDiversion in Northern Ireland, thereport of which was published in July201132. That inspection focussed on thediversion of children and young peoplefrom the formal criminal justice system,for example, by way of caution orinformed warning. In addition however,the report commented upon thesupport and interventions given to thesechildren and young people in order toprevent further offending. There areobvious overlaps therefore with thetopic of this report as many of theissues are similar. The focus of thisreport however, was more specifically on activities for the prevention ofoffending rather than on preventing re-offending or as an outcome of offending.
1.35 From the outset Inspectors werecognisant that early interventions arenot an issue that is dealt with inisolation by the criminal justice system.
31 Powell, H. (2004).The national evaluation of the Youth Justice Board’s crime prevention projects. London: Youth Justice Board. 32 Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (2011). Youth Diversion: A thematic inspection of youth diversion in the criminal justice system in
Northern Ireland. Belfast: CJI.
14
In fact, as is outlined later in the report,there are differing views as to the extentto which, if at all, justice organisationsshould be involved in the earlyinterventions field. CJI thereforeconsidered the input of the criminaljustice system as one discrete elementin this area in the context of a broadmulti-disciplinary field which includedhealth and social care, education,voluntary and community organisationsand bodies involved in socialdevelopment. Inevitably during theinspection however, early interventionswere viewed as a holistic term for arange of activities which supportedchildren and young people and theirfamilies, not just activities which werelabelled as ‘preventing offending’.
1.36 Inspectors were also mindful that therole of criminal justice in this area is,rightly so, less than that of other bodieswhose primary role is working withchildren and young people. However, itis inevitable that, in some cases, a lack of early intervention and support forchildren and young people and theirfamilies will lead to conflict with the lawand therefore criminal justice agencieshave a responsibility to contribute in thisarea.
1.37 The inspection aimed to examine andassess early youth interventionarrangements across the criminal justicesystem in Northern Ireland. Theinspection specifically aimed to considerthe areas of Strategy and Governance,Delivery, and Outcomes (or projectedoutcomes). How early youthinterventions in Northern Ireland align with existing good practice andrelevant standards, where appropriate,was also considered. The inspectionmethodology included desktop research,
interviews with representatives of thecriminal justice agencies, the PoliceService of Northern Ireland (PSNI), YJA,the Northern Ireland Prison Service(NIPS), and the PBNI, stakeholders fromother statutory agencies, the voluntaryand community sector and children’srights organisations, organisations whodelivered early intervention or youthprogrammes and with focus groups ofyoung people. Details of the fullinspection methodology can be found at Appendix 1. The Terms of Referencefor this inspection can be found atAppendix 2.
15
Early interventions strategy2.1 There was no specific strategy regarding
early interventions in place at the time of the inspection. However the overarching plan in this area inNorthern Ireland was the Children and Young People’s 10-year Strategyproduced in 2006 by OFMDFM. Thestrategy aimed to ‘ensure that by 2016 all our children and young people arefulfilling their potential’.
2.2 The strategy detailed the outcomemeasures which would indicate thesuccess of work in this area and driversfor change to realise the aims. Theindicators outlined targets which wouldevidence whether children and youngpeople were: • healthy;• enjoying, learning and achieving;• living in safety and with stability;• experiencing economic and
environmental well-being;• contributing positively to community
and society; and• living in a society which respects
their rights.
A key element of the strategy was thegradual shift to intervention with apledge that ‘we will promote a move topreventative and early intervention practice
without taking attention away from ourchildren and young people currently most inneed of more targeted services’.
2.3 The criminal justice element of thestrategy was mainly contained in thearea of contributing positively tocommunity and society. Of the fourindicators relating to the criminal justiceagencies, two focussed primarily onmeasures relating to the formal criminaljustice system and two related to theneed to prevent offending (number ofyoung people sentenced to custody;number of young people entering thecriminal justice system for the firsttime). Reference was also made to thePSNI Youth Diversion Scheme in thedrivers for change which focuses on the preventative model. There was,however, no mention of the need forearly interventions explicitly in thissection.
Community safety strategy2.4 In January 2011 the Department of
Justice published a consultation paper as part of the development of a newcommunity safety strategy33. Thisincluded within it a section on earlyinterventions for long-term crimereduction. This noted the benefits ofearly preventative intervention at both
Strategy and Governance
CHAPTER 2:
33 Department of Justice Northern Ireland (2011). Building safer, shared and confident communities: A consultation on a new community safety strategyfor Northern Ireland. Belfast: DOJNI.
‘early age’ and ‘early stage’. It notes ‘thejustice system has a limited role in providingearly years interventions, and it is rarelyappropriate for the justice agencies toengage at such an early age. However, werecognise the wider societal benefits of early years support and the link betweenintervention and reducing the risk of crime and anti-social behaviour’. Theintroduction of Child InterventionPanels (see Chapter 3) is highlighted as forming part of the early stageinterventions.
2.5 The consultation paper also commitsthe Department of Justice to ‘work withother Executive Departments to considerhow we can support early intervention andpromote it at local partnership level whereappropriate. We will continue to supportand develop early stage interventionprojects, and review what works in earlystage provision.’ At the time of theinspection the consultation period had concluded but the final strategy was yet to be launched.
2.6 A summary of responses to theconsultation was published in July 2011.Overall the majority of respondentswere supportive of the earlyintervention approach to tackle the riskof crime and anti-social behaviour. Thesummary noted that many respondentssuggested that the Department’s rolewas to work in partnership with otheragencies, both at a strategic level, andlocally through local partnerships. It was recommended by respondentsthat the Department resource earlyintervention programmes and conduct ascoping exercise into existing provision.It was also recommended that theDepartment of Justice integrate theCommunity Safety Strategy with thework of the newly formed Children and
16
Young People’s Strategic Partnership(see below). Some consultees from thevoluntary and community sectorhighlighted the importance of theDepartment’s role being clearly definedas a supporting one for other agencies,so that intervention does not lead tolabelling of children or unnecessarycontact with the justice system.
Governance and oversight for children’sservices2.7 At the time of the publication of the
Children and Young People’s 10-yearStrategy the responsible Minister wasthe then Minister for Children and YoungPeople, Maria Eagle MP. The Ministerwas responsible for driving forward the strategy with assistance from theMinisterial Sub-Committee for Childrenand Young People. Since devolution in2007 the responsibility for Children andYoung People had come under the remitof the Junior Ministers in OFMDFM. TheJunior Ministers chaired the MinisterialSub-Committee and all departmentalMinisters were members.
2.8 Inspectors were informed bystakeholders and agency representativesthat the Ministerial Sub-Committee was not well attended by Ministers, with more junior departmentalrepresentatives attending in theMinisters place. Views were mixed as to whether a single specific Minister forChildren and Young People would behelpful in this regard.
2.9 Prior to 2011 there had been limitedco-ordination of Executive departmentsin the area of early interventions. The funding, delivery, oversight andgovernance of early interventions from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety was
17
undertaken via the Children’s ServicesPlanning process. The Children’sService’s Planning process waspreviously the responsibility of fourHealth and Social Services Boards, whichwere amalgamated into one Health andSocial Care Board for Northern Irelandas a whole in 200934. The Departmentof Education funded its own interventiontype work, predominantly in the area of Alternative Education Provision.Resourcing of early intervention for the prevention of offending from theDepartment of Justice and the NorthernIreland Office previously had been via aspecific fund for the purpose, which inlatter years had been given to the YJA as a ring-fenced part of their budget (see Chapter 3).
2.10 This historic approach to earlyintervention by the Executivedepartments in Northern Ireland wasconsidered by agency representativesand stakeholders to be ineffective andvery much silo thinking. It wassuggested by several interviewees thatonce a young person became involved in the criminal justice system there hadbeen a tendency for the otherdepartments to step back and leave thecriminal justice agencies to deal with thesituation. This was especially felt to bethe case when the issues raised werepotentially difficult ones such as groupsof young people becoming seriouslydisengaged from their communities.
2.11 One attempt to achieve a more joined-up approach between health and socialcare and criminal justice had been
commenced in 2008 under the guise of the Early Intervention for thePrevention of Offending Programme.Through this, funding for three years wasmade available from the Department ofJustice to the Health and Social CareBoard to support early interventionprojects in the five Health and SocialCare Trusts (two delivered by NIACRO,two by Extern and one by Action forChildren). The projects were overseenby the Health and Social Care Board,but an Assistant Director from the YJA sat on the Steering Group, and theEarly Interventions Manager at the YJA provided practical support and co-ordination for the projects. Thisprovides a useful model of partnershipworking where justice is seen to provide support in terms of funding and through a steering group but is notdirectly involved in the programmes.The delivery and outcomes of theseprogrammes is discussed later in thisreport.
2.12 At the time of the inspection the Healthand Social Care Board were in theprocess of developing a new cross-departmental approach to children andyoung people’s services. This involvedthe formation of a Children and YoungPeople’s Strategic Partnership and thedevelopment of The Children and YoungPeople’s Plan. The draft Plan waslaunched for public consultation on 16August 2011. Meetings of the StrategicPartnership had recently commencedduring the inspection and membershipcomprised of senior members from allstatutory agencies concerned with
34 Prior to the reorganisation of Health and Social Care under the Review of Public Administration, the process of integrated planning forchildren and young people, known as Children’s Services Planning, had been a statutory responsibility of the four Health and Social ServicesBoards. This statutory duty was transferred to the Health and Social Care Board in 2009, which, together with the Public Health Agency,commissions and plans health and social care services across Northern Ireland. Children’s Services Planning was designed originally to beused by Health and Social Care Trusts to address the needs of vulnerable groups of children and young people.
children and young people’s lives, as well as senior representation from thevoluntary and community sectors.
2.13 From the criminal justice agencies therewere representatives of the PSNI, theYJA and the PBNI. The other membersranged from health and social servicesdisciplines, education and library boards,local councils, housing, social security,children’s organisations from voluntaryand community organisations, andrepresentatives from the black andminority ethnic sector. The partnershiptherefore had up to 33 members, whichwould appear challenging to effectivelymanage and facilitate. A number ofstakeholders commented that while theStrategic Partnership was in its infancy,they could foresee the size of the groupbeing problematic.
2.14 Prior to the development of theStrategic Partnership there had beenvery limited region-wide oversight ofearly interventions. There appeared toInspectors therefore, to be a clutteredlandscape of provision with a myriad ofproviders, commissioners, referrers andtarget participants leading to potentiallyinconsistent, non-integrated andexpensive delivery of services. A greaterfocus on a collaborative and joined-upapproach was needed to address this.
2.15 The aim was that the Children andYoung People’s Strategic Partnershipwould set the strategic direction anddraw up The Children and YoungPeople’s Plan. The Plan would then set in place integrated planning andcommissioning of support and servicesto improve outcomes for children andyoung people. It was envisaged that thePartnership would oversee a planningprocess which would take place at a
number of levels; firstly the NorthernIreland wide level, secondly planning atthe level of geography of Health andSocial Care Trusts (outcome groups),and thirdly at locality level (localitygroups) – geographies which make senseto local communities (for example alarge town or Council area). Finallyregional sub-groups were in the processof being established, to take forwardthose parts of the integrated planningwhich are required on a NorthernIreland wide-basis. These groups wouldaddress:• Northern Ireland work on a strategic
approach to early intervention family support services; and
• the rights and needs of specificvulnerable groups of children andyoung people (themed groups).
2.16 The draft Northern Ireland Childrenand Young People’s Plan 2011-14 wasdue for launch in November 2011 and adraft had been published forconsultation in August 2011. The draftPlan provided an overview of thePartnership and the proposed structurefor Children’s Services Planning. The fourstrategic themes which were included inthe Plan for the Strategic Partnershipwere in relation to early intervention,advising Government, integration ofplanning and optimisation of resources.Within the theme of early intervention itwas proposed that the StrategicPartnership seek status for NorthernIreland as an early intervention region.Under advising Government it proposed‘suggesting to Government that allGovernment departments develop a singleapproach to children and young people’.
2.17 Prior to the introduction of thePartnership decisions about earlyintervention services were made
18
through the Children’s Services Planningprocess. This had therefore meant thatlarge, regional or national and small,local providers could have an equalchance of applying for funding for aproject in a community or small area.Benefits were highlighted in this flexibleapproach, which combined the scale andregional or national experience of largeproviders with the ability of smallgroups to meet the needs of verylocalised communities. Somestakeholders raised concerns that theregionalisation of this process could leadto a drive for economies of scale, whichmay mean that the smaller organisationscould lose out.
2.18 The outcomes to be measured werethose referred to above taken from the10-year Children and Young Person’sStrategy. The Plan aimed to take each of the outcomes and link them toindicators and to actions that needed tobe taken to ensure improvements inthese outcomes. The development ofindicators was being undertaken by theHealth and Social Care Board and waswell underway at the time of theinspection.
2.19 There were similarities between thedevelopment of outcomes and indicatorsunder the Strategy and the approach inEngland and Wales under the Children’sPlan 2020 Goals. The goals fit with theoutcomes of the Every Child Mattersinitiative (be healthy, stay safe, enjoy andachieve, make a positive contribution,achieve economic well-being) and theircorresponding aims (for example readyfor school, physically healthy etc). Themodel in England and Wales was basedon the premise of every local authority
working with statutory and voluntarypartners, through children’s trustpartnerships, to find out what worksbest for children and young people in its area and acting on it. This is alsounderpinned by the CommonAssessment Framework which is astandardised approach to conductingassessments of children’s additionalneeds and deciding how these should bemet, similar to the Understanding theNeeds of Children in Northern Ireland(UNOCINI) assessment framework inNorthern Ireland35.
2.20 It was too early to assess the impact ofthe implementation of this new processfor Northern Ireland. The StrategicPartnership and the Plan appeared toInspectors to be a positive developmentin attempting to co-ordinate andintegrate work in relation to childrenand young people and their families,which was spread across a large number of Executive departments and also included non-statutory bodies.The concern for Inspectors, as alsohighlighted by representatives of thestatutory organisations, was the largemembership of the Partnership and thelarge number of outcome measures. In addition, there was no statutoryresponsibility for representatives fromthe various Executive departments toco-operate or work in partnership, andtherefore to some extent it was basedon a goodwill approach. Whilst it wasencouraging to hear initial enthusiasmfor the process, it will be a challenge toretain support for the Partnership andensure its sustainability.
2.21 It was also unclear who wouldultimately be responsible for the
19
35 UNOCINI provides an assessment and planning framework to assist professionals in identifying children and their family’s needs.The UNOCINIframework can also be used to make referrals to Social Services and access children’s services.
governance of the Strategic Partnership.Whilst the Chief Executive Officer ofthe Health and Social Care Boardchaired the Strategic Partnership, he didnot have ultimate accountability formembers who were part of otherExecutive departments or voluntary andcommunity organisations. Although themembers had shown initial commitment,Inspectors were not made aware of theaccountability mechanisms should oneor more of the members not followthrough on their commitments. It wastherefore also unclear how performanceof the Strategic Partnership itself wouldbe assessed and evaluated.
2.22 Inspectors met with one of the JuniorMinisters from OFMDFM with regard tothe inspection. The Junior Ministerswere undergoing a review process of the work of their office in relation tochildren and young people and povertyand social exclusion. This involved aseries of bi-lateral meetings with variousdepartments and consultations prior toreviewing their approach to issuesinvolving children and young people andupdating the 10-year Strategy. This workwould aim to make the approach tochildren and young people more co-ordinated and streamlined and thereforeit would consider the development ofthe Strategic Partnership. The principleof early intervention was clearlyfavoured by the Junior Ministers with theMinisterial Sub-Committee seen asproviding governance and accountabilityin this area. This period of work wasseen as an opportunity for the Executiveto develop appropriate structures andpartnerships to deliver an earlyintervention approach.
Youth Justice Review2.23 At the time of the inspection a team had
been appointed by the Minister of Justiceto undertake a review of youth justice.The Youth Justice Review team had givenevidence to the Committee for Justice atthe Northern Ireland Assembly in March2011 on their preliminary findings. MrJohn Graham, who led the team statedthe following in evidence in relation toearly interventions:36 ‘Given the nature of youth justice and youth crime, it isimportant to ensure a joined-up approach,so that all the agencies that are involved ininterventions and supporting young peopleat risk are working together. At the sametime, the right direction must come from the top down, which should be a strategythat is equally joined-up. It is not an issuefor only the Department of Justice. Earlyintervention and prevention is aboutsupporting families, strengthening schools,identifying problems with young peopleearly and doing something about them.That requires a multi-agency, multi-problemstrategic approach, from the top and at thelocal level.’
2.24 The final report of the Review team was published in the Northern IrelandAssembly on 26 September 201137. The report commented on the strategicand practical arrangements for deliveryof youth justice, stating: ‘The importanceof investing in the current generation ofyoung people as part of the peace processcannot be overestimated. We suggest thatthe First and Deputy First Ministers andMinisters of Departments with keyresponsibilities relating to children need tocommit themselves to prioritising children’sissues and re-energising the government’s10-year Children’s Strategy. Children who
20
36 Committee for Justice (2011). Official report (Hansard): Youth Justice Review Team, 10 March 2011. Belfast: Northern Ireland Assembly. 37 Youth Justice Review Team (2011). A review of the youth justice system in Northern Ireland. Belfast: Department of Justice.
21
offend may receive targeted interventionsfrom the criminal justice system but they should not, by virtue of this, bedisconnected from the support and servicesavailable from universal providers. Thisgeneral principle needs to inform joined-upthinking, policy and practice at the strategic,commissioning and delivery levels. At thelocal level, services for children and youngpeople, including those who offend, shouldbe delivered by multi-agency teamsoverseen by, and accountable to, theChildren and Young People’s StrategicPartnership. Policy and professionalpractice relating to children should be child-friendly and not adult-centric and build onthe success of the youth and communitysector. The Criminal Justice Delivery Group,chaired by the Minister of Justice, along withthe Criminal Justice Board, need to developa greater strategic interest in youth justiceand the connections with the widerchildren’s strategy and delivery issues.’
Governance and oversight for youthjustice2.25 The actions for youth justice issues
arising from the 10-year Strategy were,at the time of the inspection, overseenby the Youth Justice sub-group of theCriminal Justice Board. As highlightedabove however, early interventionsformed a very small part of this work.Inspectors were advised that it wasplanned that one of the thematic groupsof the Strategic Partnership would be inrelation to young people and criminaljustice issues and therefore, to avoidduplication, the Youth Justice sub-groupof the Criminal Justice Board wouldserve two functions.
2.26 The CJI inspection of Youth Diversionstated ‘Inspectors found that the 10-yearstrategy was not driving the work done bycriminal justice operatives, education and
social welfare, or members of the voluntaryand community sector as the overarchingmechanism by which approaches in thejustice sector could be drawn together.Officials and youth justice professionals toldInspectors that whilst the Criminal JusticeBoard had adopted governance of this area with regard to justice issues, keydepartments which have an impact onoutcomes such as education, employmentand learning and social services were notrepresented.’ Similarly representatives ofthe criminal justice agencies interviewedfor this inspection did not highlight the10-year Strategy as influencing theirwork.
2.27 The report recommended that ‘thereshould be cross-departmental governance ofthe justice element of the 10-year Strategyfor children and young people to achievebetter buy-in and co-ordination of effort(paragraph 2.8)’. This recommendationmay be addressed by the introduction ofthe Strategic Partnership if it deliverswhat is intended.
Police Service of Northern Ireland2.28 Interventions with young people are
referred to in the 2011-14 NorthernIreland Policing Board and PSNI PolicingPlan in relation to the Prevent andDeter strand of the Integrated OffenderManagement system (now referred to as Reducing Offending in Partnership).The Reducing Offending in Partnershipsystem provides agencies engaged withlocal criminal justice with a singlecoherent strategy for the managementof a cohort of offenders. The target forthe Prevent and Deter strand is to‘reduce crime and anti-social behaviourinvolving young people through earlyidentification and effective interventionstrategies’ by September 2013. This areaof work will be covered further in CJI’s
22
forthcoming inspection of prolificoffenders. The PSNI have agreed thatthis preventative work will go throughthe Strategic Partnership as outlinedabove, with locality and outcome groups deciding what services arecommissioned. The Youth DiversionOfficers have subsequently beentransferred to the Reducing OffendingTeams.
2.29 In addition to the Strategic Partnershipthe PSNI had also been leading on workin relation to the CommunityPrioritisation Index. This aimed toidentify and consider ‘hotspots‘ (basedon indices of community polarisation,social stress, disengagement, crime anddisorder) and compare these with areasof need as identified by health andeducation to look at areas of overlap.The premise for this idea was thatcriminal justice, health, education andsocial development were likely to all beidentifying similar areas as in need ofadditional support or funding.
2.30 This had led to the development of six‘pathfinder‘ areas (sites of most needidentified from a total of 890 superoutput areas). Through a partnershipmodel, representatives of Executivedepartments could consider outcomesand early intervention, collaboration and sustainability, and develop a modelwhere resources for projects iscentralised and local groups bid forfunding. This model of centralisedresources, rather than each departmentor agency offering funding individually,should significantly reduce duplication offunding but again needed commitmentfrom agencies and departments. Itshould also be noted that the StrategicPartnership had also mapped areas ofconcern and these would be compared
with the pathfinder areas. This processwas also in its infancy and therefore tooearly to assess any outcomes. It waspositive that the PSNI was striving togain better partnership and joined-upworking with Executive departments andagencies, but there was potential foroverlap with the Strategic Partnership,which the PSNI was also a member of.
Youth Justice Agency2.31 The Youth Justice Agency Corporate
(2009-11) and Business (2010-11) Planhad a strategic objective under the keybusiness area of Reducing Offendingwhich is ‘To reduce offending by childrenthrough supporting prevention, earlyintervention and diversion and by engagingthem in targeted interventions to promotetheir reintegration with the community’.One of the methods of delivery was to‘invest in partnerships aimed at preventingoffending’.
2.32 The Corporate and Business Plan alsoreferred to an Action Framework onYouth Justice Priorities which it stateswas developed on a multi-agency cross-sectoral basis and set out thosepriorities which the youth justice sectorbelieved to be most important, and howthey intended to address them in astructured, co-ordinated way. It notedthat three priority areas were identified,one of which was early intervention andsupport for children and families toprevent offending. The Youth Justice sub-group of the Criminal Justice Boardprovided the strategic oversight of theaction framework.
2.33 The YJA highlighted that whilst they hada statutory responsibility for deliveringcourt orders, the delivery of earlyinterventions is not a statutory priorityalthough the Agency is committed to
23
early interventions. The YJA stated theirintention to build on this in theirCorporate Plan although they werewaiting to see what impact the report of the Youth Justice Review team wouldhave on their strategic direction.
Northern Ireland Prison Service andProbation Board for Northern Ireland2.34 The NIPS and the PBNI both had
experience in delivery of earlyinterventions as will be discussed inChapter 3. The NIPS Corporate andBusiness Plan 2010-13 and the PBNI’sBusiness Plan 2010-11 and CorporatePlan 2008-11 did not make reference toearly interventions. However, this is tobe expected as early interventions arenot core business and not a statutoryresponsibility for these agencies.
24
25
Level of early intervention delivery inNorthern Ireland3.1 During the inspection, Inspectors
attempted to obtain information on thetypes and numbers of early interventionprogrammes in Northern Ireland.Inspectors were made aware of the EarlyIntervention Programmes for thePrevention of Offending from the outsetand these formed a key element of theinspection. However, Inspectors wereaware that there are a great many otherprojects, receiving funding from justiceorganisations, or the agencies of otherExecutive departments, which were alsoearly intervention focussed.
3.2 Inspectors could not get a clear sensefrom any of the interviewees spoken toof the number, types and funding of earlyintervention programmes available inNorthern Ireland. This is important inanalysing the cost of spend on earlyintervention prior to being able toassess value for money. It also suggeststhat there is a danger that funding isbeing duplicated or wasted if there is nocoherent regional co-ordination andtime spent on preparing, submitting andreviewing business cases for fundingwhich could be better spent onprogramme delivery. In addition theshort-term nature of the projects (forexample residentials over the summerperiod for young people in interfaceareas) could be seen as building false
expectations or as reactionary to events.The second report by Graham Allen MPprovides a useful overview of the earlyinterventions programmes being led bythe Public Health Agency in NorthernIreland. The extract from the report isprovided in Appendix 3.
Identification of need for earlyinterventions3.3 Within the criminal justice area most
identification of the need forinterventions with children and youngpeople came through the PSNI responseor neighbourhood officers. Officerscame into contact with young people inthe community on a daily basis. Issuesarose when young people were drinkingalcohol or taking drugs, perceived to bebehaving anti-socially and/or involved inlower level offences (for examplecriminal damage). In many of thesecases officers described using aproportionate approach either takingthem home to their parents, referringthem to the Youth Diversion Officer orusing discretionary processes to divertthem out of the criminal justice system.
3.4 Officers advised that most parents weresupportive of intervention by the police,especially if they could see that they hadtaken the opportunity to intervene anddivert the young person away frompotentially offending behaviour. Oftenthe issues raised by the community
Delivery
CHAPTER 3:
were, in the view of the officers spokento, complaints about ‘normal’ adolescentbehaviour (for example playing football,gathering in groups) and therefore didnot even warrant a police response.Difficulties arose for officers whenparents appeared uninterested in theirchild’s behaviour or openly supported it,which left officers with limitedopportunities for resolution.
3.5 At the time of the inspection the YouthDiversion Officers, as part of the ongoingYouth Diversion Scheme, were seen asthe main point of contact for responseand neighbourhood officers and a sourceof support and expert advice in relationto young people. The Youth DiversionOfficers collated details of young peoplereferred to them and identified thosewho were repeat referrals and thereforecould benefit from further intervention.Usually however this occurred at thesame time as some sort of criminalprocess (for example by way of caution,informed warning or diversionary youth conference) and therefore it isquestionable whether this can beconsidered true early intervention.However,Youth Diversion Officers werealso involved in early intervention workin relation to anti-social behaviour and ‘at risk’ behaviour (non-criminalbehaviour). These officers were alsoinvolved in early information-sharing inrelation to at risk young people withpartner statutory agencies in order toidentify needs and services.
3.6 Referral to one of the five projects inthe Early Intervention for the Preventionof Offending Programme was made bythe referring agent (for example police,Social Worker, Education WelfareOfficer) and the appropriateness of theenquiry was made by determination as
26
to whether the young person met thereferral criteria (age, location etc). TheKeyworker from the relevant projectthen completed an initial assessmentwith the child/young person’s parentwhich looked at risk and protectivefactors across five domains (individual,parenting, family influences, communityinfluences, and education factors). The projects had raised awareness oftheir work with the statutory agencies in their area in order to highlight theopportunity for referral.
Roots of Empathy3.7 Roots of Empathy originated in Canada
in 1996. It is referred to as a ‘model of social innovation’ and has twoprogrammes: the flagship programme of the same name for children inelementary school (Roots of Empathy)and Seeds of Empathy, a program forchildren aged three to five in childcaresettings. The programme has also beendelivered in the USA, the Isle of Man,New Zealand and, since the 2010-11school year, Northern Ireland, theRepublic of Ireland and Scotland.
3.8 The key element of the programmes areclassroom visits by an infant and parentevery three weeks during the schoolyear. Through guided observations of this loving relationship, children learn to identify and reflect on their ownthoughts and feelings and those ofothers. Both programmes haveindependently researched supportingevidence which show a dramatic effect in reducing levels of aggression amongchildren, while raising their social andemotional competence and increasingempathy.
3.9 The PSNI had trained two officers tofacilitate a pilot Roots of Empathy
programme in C District within theSouth Eastern Health and Social CareTrust area. The programme was alsobeing run in the Belfast Trust area. ThePSNI officers were therefore able tofacilitate the programmes within localprimary schools. An independentresearch evaluation of this work wasplanned to be undertaken by Queen’sUniversity Belfast. This had not yet beenforthcoming however. The PSNI hadsupported the pilot, which ended in2011 but, at the time of the inspectionwere unable to provide resources to theprogramme for a number of operationalreasons. This was obviously in thecontext of a reducing police budget andresources which led to focus on coreservices. The time commitmentsrequired for the training and delivery of officers for Roots of Empathy wereobviously therefore in high demand forother activities.
Citizenship and Safety Education(CASE) Programme3.10 The CASE Programme had been running
in primary and post-primary schools fora number of years. The Programmeprovided a platform for police officersto work in partnership with teachers,parents and pupils to attend schools andcommunity groups and present lessonsthat promote skills, attitudes and valuesaround issues from drugs awareness toanti-social behaviour. In addition, thecontact with schools provided a usefulmechanism for making officers aware ofcommunity contacts and issues in theirlocal area. In the school year 2009-10CASE was delivered in 581 schools.This equated to 48.5% of all schools inNorthern Ireland comprising 44% of
primary schools, 65% of secondaryschools, 76% of grammar schools and37.5% of special schools. The number ofProtestant schools visited was greaterthan the number of Catholic schools(330 vs. 191), however the PSNI hadbeen working with the Council forCatholic Maintained Schools to addressthis. In September 2011 anannouncement was made that Catholicschools in Northern Ireland are to beoffered visits by the Police Service in an attempt to overcome traditionalbarriers between them38. The addition ofthese Catholic schools, to the existingprogramme within Protestant schools, is a positive step forward in reachingschools where historically there mayhave been a difficult relationship withthe police.
3.11 Prior to the inspection the deployment of CASE officers had changed from acentralised model where officers werebased in the Community Safety Unit, toone where CASE officers were based in neighbourhood teams, and theresponsibility for the delivery of CASEwas shared between all neighbourhoodofficers in the team. Since September2010 the PSNI had also adopted a more risk-based approach to the CASEprogramme where schools had beenclassified as Priority, Important orDesirable (based on a grading criteria of issues such as social deprivation,disengagement etc., drawn from theCommunity Prioritisation Index asoutlined in Chapter 2). The aim of thiswas to focus the CASE Programme inareas of greatest need and wherehistorically communities have been harderto reach and less supportive of police.
27
38 BBC News website (2011). Catholic schools to be visited by PSNI officers. Accessed 30 September 2011 at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15115386
28
3.12 Concerns were raised with Inspectorsthat the recent changes would make thedelivery of a comprehensive schooleducation service much more difficultdue to the competing priorities ofneighbourhood duties and CASEdelivery. It was highlighted that thiscould also lead to commitments madeto schools being broken or officerswithout sufficient experience deliveringCASE, with a resulting loss of confidencein the police. These concerns variedacross districts as there had beendifferences in the way the CASE modelwas being implemented (some areas had retained one specific CASE officerwhose role was ring-fenced whereasothers had shared the work across thewhole team).
3.13 Inspectors believe that it is highlyappropriate that CASE officers aresituated within neighbourhood teams inorder that information and intelligenceis shared, to enable better successionplanning and develop local knowledge.The PSNI should also continuouslystrive to develop relationships withschools and young people from harderto reach areas. However, it is imperativethat where commitments are made toschools, particularly those which havepreviously not welcomed police contact,they are fulfilled appropriately in orderto maintain, and in some cases, raiseconfidence in the police.
Prison! Me! No Way!3.14 The NIPS provided around £25,000 per
year to support the delivery of Prison!Me! No Way! which had been inexistence for 12 years in NorthernIreland. The scheme aims to educateyoung people about the realities of life
in prison, different types of crime andprevent them from getting involved inoffending behaviour. The scheme hadalso delivered a crime week inpartnership with the police andemergency services. It operates withprison officers and staff volunteering todeliver sessions in schools, youth clubsetc., which is matched with four daysrelease time from their NIPS duties.
3.15 Inspectors were impressed by thecommitment and enthusiasm shown forthe scheme by those involved. Staff fromone education programme who hadbenefited from a Prison! Me! No Way!session said that young people found itvery impactive. The funding for thescheme in the future is yet to be decideddue to budget cuts for the NIPS.Inspectors appreciate that this work isnot core business for the Service andthat the costs of overtime to fill the gapsleft by those engaged in these activitiesare prohibitive. There are difficulties indemonstrating the value for money andevidence the outcomes of the schemebut unless this is forthcoming it will behard to justify the future business casefor such funding.
Early Interventions for the Prevention ofOffending Programme3.16 As outlined above, funding was made
available since 2008 from themainstream budget, with an initial tenderfor three years, to projects across thefive heath and social care trust areas. An independent evaluation wascommissioned by the Health and Social Care Board and undertaken byIndependent Research Solutions in201139 which reviewed the outcomes of these projects and outlined
39 Independent Research Solutions (2011). Evaluation of the Early Intervention Programme for the Prevention of Offending 2008-2011. Belfast: Healthand Social Care Board.
29
recommendations for improvement.This report will therefore not repeatthe content of that extensive report butsummarise information relevant to thisinspection.
3.17 Whilst the five projects operate slightlydifferently, their basic premise and target population are broadly similar.The projects aims to provide intensivesupport services for children and youngpeople aged 8-13 at risk of offending(and their families) who are at risk ofengaging in anti-social or offendingbehaviour. Methods vary but all includesome element of individual work andfamily or parental work with someincluding residential elements,groupwork and/or education. The fiveprojects are as follows:• Children and Parent Support - run by
NIACRO, operating in the Belfast andSouthern Trusts;
• Northern Area Early Interventionproject - run by Action for Children,operating in the Northern Trust; and
• Strength 2 Strength - run by Extern,operating in the Western and SouthEastern Trusts.
3.18 In terms of the evaluation report thefollowing points are of note:• two-fifths of the young people
referred were known to police;• the largest number of referrals came
from Social Services (45% year one,42% year two) with the PSNI thesecond largest referrer (16% yearone, 8% year two);
• in the first two years there were 409 admissions to the Programme;
• the majority of admissions were male(77% in 2009-2010);
• almost half of young people had oneagency other than the referrerengaged with them (47%), and 28%
were engaged with two agenciesother than the referrer;
• the length of time young people wereengaged with the projects rangedfrom four to eleven months;
• 76% of young people completed theProgramme in the second year; and
• in the second year of the Programmethe average cost of a service was£4,610.
3.19 Inspectors met with managers and stafffrom all three providers. They appearedmotivated and positive and were clearlyhighly knowledgeable and skilled withbackgrounds in youth, community orsocial work. All providers were inagreement that three years was tooshort a period of time to get staffsufficiently skilled, raise awareness of theProgramme and complete work with asufficient number of young people to beable to demonstrate effective outcomes.
3.20 Some concerns were raised withInspectors about the Early InterventionProgramme model. One related to thefact that in some cases young peopleworked with Keyworkers outside of thefamily environment. Therefore questionswere raised as to the sustainability ofany behavioural change when the youngperson would inevitably return to thesame environment where, for example,there were inappropriate socialinfluences, or their parent(s) struggledto cope or had problems of their own.Some of the projects did include afamily/parental work element but thisappeared to be in addition to individualwork rather than as a basis for theproject. The evaluation reportrecommended that all projects shouldconsider the use of parenting supportprogrammes.
30
3.21 In addition concerns were raised aboutthe upper age limit of the Programmebeing 13 and therefore a deficit inprovision for young people aged 14 andabove. The Programme age range wasapparently determined to cover theperiod of transition to post-primaryschool. There was some provision foryoung people of secondary/post-primaryschool age but this was not co-ordinated in the same way, and thereforethere is a danger that these youngpeople lose out on such support.
3.22 At the lower age limit there were alsosome concerns raised with a lack ofsupport for young people aged six andseven years old. Providers generallyonly took children who were aged sevenand a half upwards, mainly those whohad siblings also engaged in theprogramme. In relation to youngerchildren however it is unlikely, in mostcases, to be helpful to them to bereferred to a programme whichaddresses their behaviour for theprevention of offending. In most casesthere would be a greater need forparental support to help them todevelop their parental skills, which could be provided by other types ofearly intervention.
3.23 Young people in a residential careplacement had also been excluded fromthe Programme as it was felt theyalready had a corporate parent in theform of Social Services, and thereforehad access to services. It is well knownthat children and young people from aresidential care background are over-represented in the criminal justicesystem and therefore additional supportfor these young people is clearlyimportant, although potentially not
through the format of these familysupport-type projects.
3.24 Recently the criteria for entry to theProgramme had been extended toinclude those children and young peoplewho had been subject to a caution fromthe police. This was a positive step inproviding further opportunity forintervention for young people who hadoffended at a low level. However therewere concerns raised as to whether thiswould increase the number of referralsmade to an unmanageable level, leadingto delays in young people receiving theservice. It was too early to assess theimpact of this change but this willrequire careful monitoring.
The role of the Youth Justice Agency inearly interventions3.25 As outlined in Chapter 2 the YJA were
involved in, and supportive of, theChildren and Young People’s StrategicPartnership. The Chief Executive of theYJA chaired the Youth Justice sub-groupof the Criminal Justice Board, whichwould in the future potentially act as the sub-group for the Partnership. TheAgency had an Early InterventionsManager appointed on a temporary basisthat had oversight and co-ordinationresponsibilities in relation to the EarlyIntervention Programme as highlightedabove. The strategic oversight of theEarly Intervention Programme was attwo levels; the first being operationallythrough a multi-agency Steering Groupmade up of representation from thePSNI, the YJA, the Health and SocialCare Trust and the Education andLibrary Board. The second oversightmechanism was through the YouthJustice sub-group of the Criminal JusticeBoard as outlined above.
31
3.26 Many interviewees raised concernsabout the withdrawal of the YJA fromthe provision of non-statutory supportto young people at risk of, or involvedin, offending. The Agency had, in recentyears, been prioritising statutory workwith young people who have beenreferred by the Public ProsecutionService or Courts rather than voluntaryattendees (i.e. those who had notreceived an order from the court toengage). Whilst the Agency expressedtheir commitment to the ethos of earlyinterventions and continued to supportprojects (see below) they felt thatbudget restrictions and the increasednumber of court orders had left themwith limited resources to engage in earlyinterventions fully.
3.27 The impact of this on police colleaguesand other service providers was thatthey felt the opportunities available tosupport young people, where once theywould have sought assistance from theYJA, were now limited.
3.28 At the time of the inspection the YJAhad an external funding budget whichwas used to fund community andvoluntary projects. The Agencycontributed funding to a range of earlyintervention projects. This came from itsexternal funding budget of £735,000. Inaddition £360,000 was funded from theDepartment of Health, Social Servicesand Public Safety to the YJA directly tosupport the Choices project. TheAgency also funded a further £50,000from it’s external funding budget intoChoices. Providers from the voluntaryand community sector then tendered todeliver Choices and other projects. The YJA were part of the Governmentfunding database to ensure there was noduplication in funding with other
departments. The various projectsfunded via this method are summarisedbelow.
3.29 The range and overlap of projectsfunded, highlights the issue raised of a lack of co-ordination of criminaljustice funding and oversight of earlyintervention work. The YJA advised thatthey were trying to move away fromhistorical funding and looking more atvalue for money and an outcome-basedapproach. They stated they were asking providers to look at how earlyintervention keeps the young personfrom coming into the criminal justicesystem for example, by using parents andself-evaluation tools, measures of schoolattendance etc.
Choices Family Support Programme3.30 Choices operated between the YJA,
Action for Children, Barnardo‘s andBallymena and Larne Volunteer Centrein the Northern Trust Area. The servicehelped children (aged 10-17 years) todevelop positive relationships withothers, strategies to promote their ownpersonal safety, become aware of theirrights and responsibilities, develop asactive members of a community,understand that choices bringconsequences including the importanceof rules and laws, and the implications ofbreaching these, including the effects orimpacts of anti-social behaviour. It wassimilar therefore to the Northern AreaEarly Intervention Project as outlinedabove but with a broader age range.However it also sought to train localvolunteers to support the delivery ofgroup work programmes and parentingwork. There were therapeutic workersfor young people in the higher-riskgroups. The project was funded forthree years until March 2011, with
referrals originating from social services,education, police and family centres. TheYJA facilitated the strategic group whichoversees the work.
FACES: Family and Child EmpowermentServices3.31 This was a multi-agency initiative
delivered by Extern which was aimed atproviding intensive support to childrenand young people in South and EastBelfast who were having difficulty withinthe education system, at risk ofbecoming involved in anti-socialbehaviours or at risk of being receivedinto a care placement. The project alsoaimed to empower parents and carersto manage their children’s behaviours ina positive and constructive way, enablingthe children to remain living at homeand preventing the necessity of a careplacement. The families may be offeredtherapeutic services and/or be referredfor specialist support from otheragencies. Extern worked with the YJA,the Belfast Health and Social Care Trustand the Education Welfare Service indelivering this project. The involvementof the YJA was along the same lines asthe Early Intervention Programmesabove with an oversight and monitoringrole.
Newry/Armagh and DungannonAdolescent Partnership3.32 Barnardo’s delivered two adolescent
services in the Southern Trust for 13-19year olds (designed to avoid overlapwith the Child and Parent SupportProject in the Southern Trust). Thepartnerships were multi-agency teamsinvolving social services, the YJA,education, the Child and AdolescentMental Health Service and Barnardo’s.The partnerships were primarily fundedby social services and the Health and
Social Care Board through theChildren’s Services Planning process but the YJA provide support by way ofaccommodation in their offices. The YJAalso sat on the Partnership SteeringGroup. About half of the young peoplereferred to this project were involved inthe criminal justice system. Youngpeople were engaged for an average ofeight to 12 months in the programme.
Youth Diversion Forums3.33 The Youth Diversion Forums were an
initiative led in 2006 by the PSNI andthe YJA. These attempted to replace the PSNI’s Juvenile Liaison Bureaux, theloss of which had significantly reducedthe opportunity for agencies tocommunicate and co-ordinate servicesfor children vulnerable to, or involved in, offending behaviour. The YouthDiversion Forums introduced moreformal and structured inter-agencyassessment, planning, intervention,review and evaluation processes. TheForums sign-posted young people toappropriate services for their needs.Over time the Forums developed todifferent levels throughout NorthernIreland due to a number of factorsincluding:• the absence of a multi-agency
information sharing protocol;• a lack of understanding and
commitment at senior level withinstatutory organisations; and
• resource limitations.
Various incarnations of the YouthDiversion Forum approach were still inexistence in some areas of NorthernIreland during the inspection butInspectors were advised that there wereplans for Child Intervention Panels toreplace these and therefore they werenot reviewed as part of this report.
32
33
Child Intervention Panels3.34 Three Child Intervention Panels were
being piloted in the South Eastern Trustarea for one year between June 2010and June 2011 after which they wereindependently evaluated. A member ofstaff from the YJA was the ProjectManager and it was overseen by theYouth Justice sub-group of the CriminalJustice Board. The Panels were multi-agency consisting of representativesfrom the PSNI, Social Services, the YJAand Education Welfare. Howevervoluntary organisations that provideearly intervention services were notroutinely represented on ChildIntervention Panels (or Youth DiversionForums) due to data protection issues.Service providers (from the voluntarysector) had the capacity to attend aPanel meeting prior to any engagementwith a young person and/or their family,as well as periodically in order toupdate the panel. Such representationon a routine basis may be helpful inorder to provide professional adviceabout the services available and theappropriateness of the service for theyoung person. The full involvement ofservice providers is a model that workswell in relation to offenders for thereferral panel for Approved Premises40
and therefore such a model could beapplied to these Panels.
3.35 The main aim of the Panels was ‘toidentify the most vulnerable children under18 years at the early stage and to providethem with co-ordinated services in order todivert them from offending or problematicbehaviours’41. The remit of the Panelswas expanded from the Youth Diversion
Forum approach to include referralsfrom any of the participating agencies forproblematic behaviour which might leadto offending and which would benefitfrom a multi-agency response. Inaddition, a greater emphasis was placedon linking children and young people tosupport delivered by the voluntary andcommunity sectors. It should be notedhowever that the Extern Strength 2Strength Project (part of the EarlyInterventions Programme) had not yetreceived any referrals from the Panel for their services at the time of theinspection.
3.36 The Panels met every two weeks todiscuss and decide action for youngpeople referred to them. Cases referredwere assessed by the Panel to identifythose at lower levels of need (Hardikerlevels 1 and 242) who did not meet the threshold for social servicesintervention and therefore were suitablefor referral from the Panel to a service.A case co-ordinator was appointed tooversee the case. If there were seriousconcerns then the case was taken overby Social Services Gateway Teams43 inline with UNOCINI processes.
3.37 Funding was provided for the pilot bythe Department of Justice and the PSNI with ‘in kind’ support from the YJA for the Project Manager’s positionand IT support as well as officeaccommodation. The Youth Justice sub-group of the Criminal Justice Boardacted as a Strategic Management Groupfor the pilot. It should be noted thatduring the course of this inspection adifficulty with administrative support for
40 See CJI’s inspection of Approved Premises (2008) available at www.cjini.org41 Independent Research Services (2011). Evaluation of the Child Intervention Panels: Interim Report. Coleraine: IRS. 42 The Hardiker Model is a framework to assess level of need for support. There are four levels representing the increasing need for support;
Universal (level 1), Vulnerable (level 2), Complex (level 3) and Severe (level 4).43 Gateway Teams in Health and Social Care Trusts have responsibility for receive referrals regarding child protection concerns and for
completion of the initial assessment which will inform the future direction as regards case management.
the Panels (which was provided by theYJA and funded by the Department ofJustice) led to their suspension for asubstantial period of time. During thisperiod of suspension the practicesreturned to those which had existedpreviously where Social ServicesGateway Teams received a referral fromagencies. Anecdotal evidence from thePSNI suggested that this had led to alarge number of forms being sent toSocial Services which were usuallydeemed not to meet the threshold fortheir involvement; therefore these youngpeople would not receive any servicefrom agencies, which may have beenprovided through the Child InterventionPanel had it been in operation. Socialworkers who had worked with thePanels therefore saw this as a real loss.
3.38 Although, at the time of writing, the final evaluation of the pilot was yet tobe completed, the interim reporthighlighted the benefits of the Panelsand some issues that needed addressingto ensure their success. Between July2010 and February 2011 the threePanels had received almost 600 referralsand anecdotally Inspectors were toldthat the majority of these originatedfrom the PSNI. Some intervieweesraised concerns that this type of forum,which has been developed and can beseen to be led by the justice system,could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.It is a challenge therefore to ensure thatsuch a process does not draw youngpeople unnecessarily into the justicesystem rather than divert them from it.
3.39 A key issue in relation to divertingyoung people away from the criminaljustice system is ensuring thatopportunities for early intervention areseized as they appear, rather than waiting
34
for the outcomes of formal criminaljustice processes. Observations at oneChild Intervention Panel indicated that,in some cases where the young personhad been referred to the PublicProsecution Service for a decision on aprosecution file, there were delays inseeking support for the young personpending a direction from the prosecutor.Whilst this could be a one-offoccurrence, and is at odds with the aimsand objectives of the Panels (whichoutline the need to identify and provideservices at an early stage) such issuescould mean delays of several monthsand that the opportunity to intervene ismissed as the young person has alreadyentered the criminal justice system.
3.40 In addition, it was noted by YouthDiversion Officers spoken to that mostreferrals were for offending behaviour(rather than for problematic behaviourwhich would lend itself better to theprevention of offending and earlyinterventions). If this is the case then itis critical that such issues are addressed.
3.41 The PSNI assured Inspectors that effortshad been made in recent months toengage further with prosecutors in the relevant regions and enhance theirawareness about the Child InterventionPanels. The involvement in a Panelcould be taken into consideration by the prosecutor during the decisionmaking process. The Panels had alsobeen advised that cases should be dealtwith in a maximum 14 days in order toavoid undue delay.
3.42 Inspectors also heard frustrations fromYouth Diversion Officers (whichsupports the findings of the interimreport) about the lack of continuity ofrepresentatives from Social Services at
35
the Panels. If there was no-one fromSocial Services in attendance then thePanel had to be deferred which couldcause delays for young people.
3.43 There was also the potential for overlapwith other such referral groups whichoperated across Northern Ireland.Multi-agency Anti-Social BehaviourForums had been set up in response tolegislation introducing Anti-SocialBehaviour Orders. Whilst these forumscovered both adults and young people,without effective communicationprocesses between the two bodies therecould be the potential for overlap withChild Intervention Panels. This had beenaddressed by the YJA representative atthe Panel also being the representativeat the Anti-Social Behaviour Forum. An agreement was in existence that areferral mechanism through thisrepresentative should take placeproviding both bodies with relevantinformation as and when appropriate.There is also a potential overlap withFamily Support Hubs which are outlinedin more detail below.
3.44 In addition, it was unclear how the ChildIntervention Panels would feature in theplans for outcome and locality groupsunder the Children and Young People’sStrategic Partnership. Again, it is criticalthat there was co-ordination of suchservices to avoid duplication or youngpeople slipping through gaps inprovision.
Family Support Hubs3.45 Some stakeholders highlighted to
Inspectors the benefits of a non-criminal
justice led approach to the co-ordinationof support for preventing offending andfamily difficulties. The Family SupportHub model was proposed as analternative approach based on a family and social work approach ratherthan a criminal justice approach. Theintegration of the young people whosecases are reviewed and managed by aChild Intervention Panel into the model of the Family Support Hub wassomething that was raised as a potentialdevelopment over the longer-term.
3.46 The Family Support Hubs were anetwork of agencies (bothvoluntary/community and statutory)who work directly with parents andchildren in a local area. The Hubengaged with families who did not meetthe threshold for statutory social worksupport and aimed to avoid duplicationand improve co-ordination of servicedelivery to individual families. The Hubs provided early intervention familysupport services to vulnerable familiesand children aged 0-18 depending onservices available in the local area. Hubs could also signpost families toother services (using the Family Support Database44).
3.47 The Hubs were suggested as having aperception of neutrality to the familiesusing them as, although funded by theHealth and Social Care Board andreceiving referrals from Social Services,Education Welfare, criminal justice etc,they are not viewed as being run bystatutory agencies. This is important,not just from a criminal justiceperspective but also from a social
44 The Family Support Database is a recently developed directory of services for children and their families in Northern Ireland, seewww.familysupportni.gov.uk
services perspective, where somefamilies view the statutory agencies withsuspicion or believe that acceptingsupport from statutory bodies couldlead to the removal of their childreninto care.
3.48 The Youth Justice Review supports thisview stating that: ‘As we have seen here inNorthern Ireland, voluntary youth andcommunity services can draw in supportfrom volunteers, parents and the localcommunity, engaging people in ways thestatutory sector is unable to do. It canmediate between young people and lawenforcement agencies and build support forthe rule of law. It can offer opportunitiesfor young people to see beyond the horizonof their immediate environment and nurtureaspiration and opportunity. It also connectswith the most isolated, disadvantaged andhard to reach young people who will notengage with statutory organisations’. TheTeam recommended that ‘The success ofyouth and community work in NorthernIreland should be built on by providingadditional resources to support itsexpansion, allowing other agencies to drawon the skills and expertise of youth andcommunity workers in engaging youngpeople, especially those who offend’.
3.49 Inspectors visited a Family Support Hubin the Western Trust. The approachthere was explained to be very muchcentred on the child and the family in aconsensual relationship. The referringagency was expected to play their partas a member of the team around thechild with only relevant agenciesexpected to participate on an agreedbasis with the family. In this particularHub the local PSNI Youth DiversionOfficer was part of the managementgroup and therefore there was a
relevant criminal justice input, withsome referrals coming from the PSNI.
3.50 At the time of the inspection the Hubswere only operational in some areas ofNorthern Ireland and at different stagesof development. The accountability andgovernance of the Hubs was highlightedas a potential difficulty by somestakeholders, with a potential lack ofaccountability by statutory agencies. The same issue was not prevalent in theChild Intervention Panel model, with itbeing led by statutory agencies.
3.51 The focus on Family Support Hubs bythe Children and Young People’sStrategic Partnership and Children’sServices Planning in the Trusts had ledthe criminal justice agencies to focus onhow Child Intervention Panels could beintegrated into this delivery model. Apilot had therefore been agreed to takeplace in the Northern Health and SocialCare Trust for six months which wouldlink the Child Intervention Panel intothe Family Support Hub. The details ofthis had not been decided upon at thetime of the inspection but the projectlead in the PSNI envisaged the Panel as asatellite of the Hub with information fedback and forth as appropriate. Theevaluation of this pilot could potentiallybe compared to a model of a ‘pure’Child Intervention Panel (isolated fromthe Family Support Hub) in anotherTrust area, but again, the details ofwhether and how this could be donehad not been agreed.
3.52 A similar model to the Family SupportHub was in existence in West Belfastand the Greater Shankill known as‘Integrated Services for Children andYoung People’. The West Belfast
36
Integrated Services Programme was partof the West Belfast Partnership Board.The programme worked with youngpeople aged 5-18 focusing on fourthemes of health and well-being, familysupport, education/learner support andyouth support. A variety of agenciesreferred young people and multi-disciplinary teams in the local areaprovided them with a service. The WestBelfast Integrated Services ProgrammeManager was a member of the StrategicPartnership and sat on the BelfastOutcomes Group.
3.53 The Strategic Partnership offers anopportunity to look at this modelfurther in the context of earlyinterventions in a structured and co-ordinated manner. It was apparent toInspectors that there was the danger ofsignificant overlap and duplicationbetween the Family Support Hub modeland the Child Intervention Panels, notjust in terms of membership but also inpotential population of referrals.Therefore failure to co-ordinate thesetwo models could be expensive, timeconsuming and unhelpful to children and their families or lead to regionalvariations and inconsistencies. Eachmodel has different perceived benefitswith the Child Intervention Panelsbringing a greater level of governanceand accountability to the Family SupportHub, together with involvement fromstatutory agencies, albeit potentially in a referral and advisory capacity. The integration of the two approachesshould ensure consistency and avoidduplication with input from bothstatutory agencies and the voluntary and community sector.
Prince’s Trust3.54 The Prince’s Trust ran a variety of
programmes for young people, usually inthe older age ranges (from ages 14 upto 30), who were not in employment,education or training and thereforeoften at risk of engaging in anti-social orcriminal behaviour. Inspectors wereadvised that 20% of the Prince’s Trustclient base had either been involved inoffending or were at risk of offending.The Team Programme was a 12-weekcommunity project with colleges foryoung people who were not ‘work-ready’ to build their confidence andvocational skills. Included within thiswas a two week work experienceplacement. From April 2008 to March 2011, the PSNI had provided 22 secondees to The Trust’s TeamProgramme (nine of these during 2010-11). The Prince’s Trust receivedreferrals from the YJA and the PBNI for their services.
District police interventions withchildren and young people3.55 Officers from neighbourhood teams
spoken to advised Inspectors about localinitiatives to engage with children andyoung people and prevent offending.Examples ranged from cross-communityinitiatives, prison visits, work with youthclubs, residential activities, midnightsoccer and inter-generational events.The main barrier to these activities wasa lack of funding sources but the rangeof events demonstrated the initiative ofthe officers concerned and theircommitment to engaging with youngpeople. However, again there appearedto be lack of co-ordination of theseactivities in the wider early interventionscontext, variations in sustainability andlimited sharing of good practice.
37
Probation Board for Northern Ireland3.56 In 2001 the PBNI had set-up the
IMPACT (Inclusive Model of PartnershipAgainst Car Theft) car crime project inWest Belfast. The project had involvedparticipation from statutory andvoluntary organisations, and had beendeveloped in response to high levels ofcar crime by young people in that area.The project included the three tiers of;education, diversionary and intervention.The education tier included educationand prevention programmes in primaryand secondary schools and youth clubs,whilst the preventative and diversionaryprogrammes of work were targeted atthose vulnerable to involvement in cartheft activity.
3.57 An evaluation of the project in 2005stated that ‘IMPACT has made a significantcontribution to the fact that the level of car crime in West Belfast has fallendramatically in the past three years’.Figures showed that the level ofunauthorised takings of vehicles hadfallen by 92% and the level of stolenvehicles recovered in West Belfast wasdown by 47%. The project ended byagreement in September 2010.
3.58 Similar to the issues by the YJA raisedabove, the PBNI did not have sufficientresources to work with non-adjudicatedoffenders and they had seen their clientbase move towards those at the higherend of the offending spectrum.However, Probation was a member ofthe Children and Young People’sStrategic Partnership.
3.59 The PBNI also provided funding toNIACRO in support of their family workfor offenders, which included workingwith siblings of offenders who could beconsidered at risk of offending. ThePBNI were not heavily involved in theEarly Interventions Programme but oneprovider had commented that they hadreceived some referrals from them forsiblings of their clients.
38
Measurement of outcomes4.1 In terms of outcomes in relation to
preventing offending or entry into thecriminal justice system, few projectswere able to provide evidence of robustmonitoring and long-term evaluation.Partly this was due to the length of timesome of the projects had been runningfor but there were other issues whichare similar to those raised in the Allenreport.
4.2 The Early Intervention Programmesused Farrington’s risk factors to monitorprogress at referral, review stage andclosure and include the family andreferring agency. However, other earlyinterventions projects used differenttools for the assessment of risk andprotective factors even within the sameprovider (for example strengths anddifficulties) which therefore madeevaluation of outcomes difficult. Theevaluation report of the programmesrecommended that the use of theUNOCINI template forms forassessment and referral should beconsidered to standardise the approach.When multiplied across the myriad ofproviders of the different interventionsprogrammes in Northern Ireland theproblem becomes even more complex,and therefore it is virtually impossible tocompare the outcomes of differentprojects.
4.3 The assessment of long-term outcomeswas also problematic. For example,some projects reported that theyreceived follow-up information from the police as to whether young peoplepreviously known to them had come totheir attention during or on completionof the programme. However, thisinformation tended to be anecdotal,short-term information and informallyobtained via personal contacts ratherthan in a structured way. The evaluationreport suggested that interviews shouldbe held with children and parents at theone-year post-discharge stage as well asobtaining information on offending.
4.4 Feedback was usually sought from theyoung person themselves and from theirparent or guardian at the end of theprogramme, although this was notalways provided. In addition, for theEarly Interventions Programme theprojects sought feedback from thereferring agency but it is unclear to what extent this was anecdotal or based on sound evidence. Thisreinforces the point made by GrahamAllen MP (highlighted earlier) that‘Without robust information with which tomake comparisons, budget holders andpotential investors face the problems ofequivalence and accountability foroutcomes’.
39
Outcomes
CHAPTER 4:
4.5 The limited evaluation of outcomes wassomething the YJA had recognised as anissue. They had asked service providersto look more closely at how earlyinterventions prevent young peoplefrom coming into the criminal justicesystem. There is however, a danger inasking service providers to evaluatetheir work in this way with the potentialfor perceptions of a lack of objectivityshould these same deliverers tender forfuture contracts. Any findings thereforeneed to be confirmed by entirelyindependent parties. Work in this areawas currently being led by the Managerfrom the YJA who was responsible forproviding oversight of the EarlyIntervention Programme. The EarlyInterventions Manager was working toensure consistency of approach andreferral criteria and developing practicestandards for the projects.
4.6 Longer-term evaluation was also indevelopment stage and different criteriawere being considered and might takethe form of a review of the youngperson one year post-discharge with the consent of the parents. Possiblemeasures included re-referrals, removalfrom the Child Protection Register,information on offending, increases ineducational capacity (based onteacher/school assessment) and schoolattendance. It was too early to say whatthe outcome of this work would be.
4.7 The Early Interventions Manager hadassisted the Professional Advisor in theHealth and Social Care Board indeveloping an outcomes framework with high level outcomes, which wouldfeed into monitoring by the Board and ultimately the Children and YoungPeople’s Strategic Partnership. It had
also been developed to incorporate theUNOCINI system. Unfortunately, dueto other operational demands, thesecondment to the Early InterventionsManager post was due to end during theperiod of the inspection and it was notclear therefore who would continue toassist from a justice perspective with thiswork.
The views of young people and theirparents/guardians4.8 The evaluation of the Early Interventions
Programmes sought and reported on the views of young people about thespecific project they were involved with.Generally views from young people andtheir parents were positive about thestaff, the projects themselves, the waytheir views were sought and they werekept updated and the fact that suchsupport was made available for them.Some concerns were raised by parentsabout the availability of further supportonce the engagement with the projecthad concluded. However, all parentsreported at least some improvements intheir child’s behaviour.
4.9 As the evaluation of the EarlyInterventions Programme hadundertaken these interviews CJI did notrepeat this work. Instead Inspectorsspoke to groups of young peopleinvolved in other types of communitybased projects (not necessarily labelledas early intervention but working withdisadvantaged and/or disengaged youngpeople) from a number of providers.The purpose of this was not to inspectthe individual providers and projects butto ask young people about the benefitsthey gained from engagement in theseprojects to find out what works. Thegroups were in a variety of locations,
40
run by voluntary and community sectororganisations and involved young peoplewhose ages ranged from 14 to 17.
4.10 Young people told Inspectors that thegroups helped to give them somethingto do, keeping them off the streets andinvolving them in a variety of activities.Activities ranged from recreationalexcursions such as outdoor pursuits,sports, trips to the local cinema orbowling alley, educational activities, workaround wellbeing and healthy lifestylesand work in their communities. Someyoung people had been involved in workcovering issues of anti-social behaviour,alcohol and drug use and consequencesof behaviour.
4.11 Young people identified that beinginvolved in the groups had assisted indeveloping their confidence and self-esteem as well as, in some cases,improving relationships and lines ofcommunication within families. Youngpeople felt able to give their opinionsand feedback about the work of thesegroups. A couple of young peoplecontrasted this to the schoolenvironment which they perceived to bemore formal. All young people statedthey had built up good relationshipswith the youth workers they wereinvolved with. This was illustrated bythe fact that some young peoplementioned that they would discuss anyproblems they had with the youthworkers rather than within their ownfamilies.
4.12 Young people also identified the benefitsof these types of projects in keepingyoung people out of trouble and off the
41
streets where they felt they were morelikely to become involved in anti-socialbehaviour, consume alcohol and drugsand fight with other young people. Oneyoung male commented that the projectshowed young people that they could“have a lifestyle that doesn’t involve riotingand fighting”.
4.13 Young people were asked about thelongevity of the projects in their area.Most commented that they had seenother projects come and go and this wasparticularly the case when diversionaryprojects were set up for the summerperiod around the Twelfth of Julyparades. Some young people felt thatthere was a need for longer-termfunding for projects in order to ensurethey ran for a sufficient length of timefor them to be involved.
Early intervention with harder to reachgroups4.14 Agency representatives, stakeholders
and service providers did not raise anyparticular difficulties in reaching out tochildren and young people from adiverse range of backgrounds or groupsof children who may be disadvantagedor over-represented in the criminaljustice system, with the exception ofchildren from a care background. The large proportion of children from looked-after or residential carebackgrounds in criminal justice settingshas been well documented in CJI’sprevious reports45 and the picture wassimilar in relation to early interventions.One provider offered early interventionprojects specifically targeted around thecare system (for example the ExternJanus and Linx programmes).
45 See for example CJI’s inspection reports of the Juvenile Justice Centre available at www.cjini.org
4.15 Difficulties in accessing universal andtargeted support was raised as an issuefor children and young people in ruralcommunities, for example due to thedistances between services and the lackof opportunity for young people whomay have been excluded from their localservices (such as youth clubs) and arethen unable to access another onenearby. Rural areas were alsohighlighted as being more difficult forstaff from service providers to accessbut effective planning aimed toovercome this.
4.16 Access for children and young peoplefrom minority ethnic or foreign nationalcommunities was raised as a potentialissue due to language or culturalbarriers but the numbers within thesystem were not considered to be large.Children and young people from theTravelling Community did not appear tobe accessing the early interventionservices visited but targeted serviceswere provided by specialistorganisations such as An Munia Tober,although funding was raised as an issuefor such organisations.
4.17 The draft Northern Ireland Childrenand Young People’s Plan 2011-14proposed establishing regional sub-groups to plan for specific groups ofchildren and young people and toaddress key issues. The groupsproposed were those for young carers;children and young people withemotional and behavioural difficulties;children with a disability; transition fordisabled children and young people;black and minority ethnic children; andchildren and young people andoffending.
Value for money4.18 Mainstream funding from the
Department of Health, Social Servicesand Public Safety was approximately£1 million for the Early InterventionsProgramme. The Programme wasdeveloped in liaison with the NorthernIreland Office (prior to the devolutionof policing and justice) but they wereunable to provide funding for it. Theevaluation of the Early InterventionProgrammes recommended that, ‘in lightof the positive outcomes in many domainsof the children’s and their parent’s lives that further funding be made available toensure the needs of all children whorequire such support are met’. The reportsuggests that ‘the Programme should bedeveloped further with support from theDepartment of Justice and the Departmentof Education’.
4.19 In addition to the funding of this specificprogramme the Department of Health,Social Services and Public Safetyprovided £3.5 million as regional fundingfor family support packages. Some ofthese packages were targeted specificallyfor children vulnerable to offending. The remainder were not specificallylinked to offending although it is likelythat all family support would make acontribution to justice outcomes.
4.20 As highlighted in Chapter 3 the YJA hadan external funding panel and earlyinterventions scheme which was used tofund projects. The Agency contributedfunding to a range of early interventionprojects from its external funding budgetof £735,000 (which covered a range ofprojects including early intervention).An additional £360,000 was funded fromthe Department of Health, Social
42
Services and Public Safety to the YJAdirectly to support the Choices project.The Agency also funded a further£50,000 from it’s external fundingbudget into the Choices project.
4.21 It was envisaged that the Children andYoung People’s Strategic Partnershipwould provide funding at the outcomegroup level to provide services. Theneed for a shift towards direct fundingfrom Executive departments for earlyinterventions to be reflected in thebusiness plans of the agencies wasnoted. A shared budget for children and young people’s services which allrelevant departments contributed to was also highlighted as key to ajoined-up approach.
4.22 One difficulty raised in relation to valuefor money was that funding cyclestended to be on a three year basis. Thiscreated issues because of the short timeperiod, particularly in relation to thefirst cycle of a new project. This couldlead to a reduction in the numbers of
young people accessing quality servicesdue to the difficulties in getting servicesset-up, building relationships withagencies, staff appropriately trained andskilled and evaluations completed inonly three years. Some intervieweescommented that a five-year funding cyclewould be more appropriate as it wouldmean less time was spent on applyingfor and justifying funding and more timedelivering services to young people.
4.23 As outlined in Chapter 1 costs incustody in Northern Ireland rangebetween £132,904 and £267,991 peroccupant per year46 and costs for anoccupant in a residential care home onaverage £156,967 per year.47 Costs wereprovided in the evaluation report forsome of the projects in the EarlyInterventions Programme as outlinedbelow. These are significantly less thanthe costs of custody and care forchildren who ultimately go on to displayextremely challenging behaviour orcommit offences.
4.24 At the lower end of the spectrum a
43
46 Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (2011). An announced inspection of Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre. Belfast: CJI. 47 Independent Research Solutions (2011). Evaluation of the Early Intervention Programme for the Prevention of Offending 2008-2011. Belfast: Health
and Social Care Board.
Table 2: Costs of the Early Intervention Programme per child or young person
Provider Project Cost per child/young person
Action for Children Northern Area Early £5,204 (2009/10)Intervention Project
Extern Strength 2 Strength £3,642 (2009/10 South Eastern Health & Social Care Trust area)£3,771 (2009/10 Western Health & Social Care Trust area)
NIACRO Child and Parent Support £5,292 (2009/10 Belfast Health & Social Care Trust area)£6,891 (2009/10 Southern Health & Social Care Trust area)
report by the former Department ofChildren, Schools and Families inEngland and Wales48 reported that ‘The cumulative cost to public services ofchildren with troubled behaviour is tentimes that for other children. The meanextra cost is more than £15,000 a year, of which families themselves bear a third(mainly through reduced earnings);education services bear a third; healthservices and the benefit system each bear15% and social services bear 6%’. Even atthis more conservative figure of £15,000it can be seen that early interventionprovides a more cost-effective optionshould the child or young person’sbehaviour continue to worsen unabated.
4.25 Inevitably however, this value for moneycan only be fully demonstrated if earlyintervention projects have been shownto result in long-term effectiveness. It will only be cost-effective if youngpeople are diverted away from offendingbehaviour and families able to copebetter in times of difficulty.
Benchmarking4.26 To date there had not been
benchmarking undertaken for the Early Intervention Programme. This was something that the YJA EarlyIntervention Manager had intended todo but now looked unlikely due to thepost ending. It was suggested that thiswould be something the StrategicPartnership would look at. Someproviders of the early interventionprojects (for example Action forChildren, Barnardo’s) were part of UK-wide organisations and thereforecould draw from good practice in otherparts of the UK. Some interventions in
the UK and in Northern Ireland, such asthe Family Nurse PartnershipProgramme and Roots of Empathy hadbeen drawn from evidence-basedinternational practice in the US andCanada.
Conclusions4.27 The measurement of outcomes is
undoubtedly challenging, potentially time consuming and needs to take placeover a longer timeframe than has beenachieved to date. However without such critical information decisionsaround the sustainability of suchprojects and the funding for them aredifficult and potentially inaccurate, basedon predicted outcomes or worse still‘gut instinct’ or personal relationships.
4.28 As the reports by Graham Allen MPreiterate several times, a failure toproperly evaluate early interventionsprojects at both the short-term andlong-term stages will result in apersistent lack of confidence in the earlyinterventions approach. This will lead to policy makers continuing to supportshort-term interventions in reaction to issues, when problems are alreadyentrenched in individuals, families andcommunities.
44
48 Department for Children, Schools and Families (2010) as quoted in Independent Research Solutions (2011). Evaluation of the Early InterventionProgramme for the Prevention of Offending 2008-2011. Belfast: Health and Social Care Board.
Appendices
2Section
45
Appendix 1: Methodology
Desktop research and development of inspection Terms of Reference andquestion areas
Research literature and guidance documentation was reviewed in relation to early youthinterventions. Relevant documents included:• the recent reports by Graham Allen MP: Early interventions: The next steps, an independent report
to Her Majesty’s Government and Early interventions: Smart investment, massive savings, the secondindependent report to Her Majesty’s Government;
• research on early interventions projects in the UK;• the OFMDFM Children and Young People’s 10-year Strategy;• the evaluation of the Early Intervention for the Prevention of Offending Programme by
Independent Research Solutions; and• research into crime prevention and youth intervention (for example by The Howard League,
Ministry of Justice, C4EO etc.).
Document reviewA review was conducted of documentation and data provided by the agencies and serviceproviders in relation to early intervention work, the development of the Children and YoungPeople’s Strategic Partnership, strategy documents and corporate and business plans.
FieldworkThe questions used during the fieldwork for this inspection were developed in line with the CJIInspection Framework in the areas of Strategy and Governance, Delivery and Outcomes (orProjected Outcomes). Specific interview questions were developed for the focus groups withyoung people.
One-to-one and focus groups interviews were conducted with a range of personnel within therelevant agencies. Interviews were also conducted with stakeholders who had an interest in earlyinterventions and service providers and focus groups were conducted with young people.Representatives from the following areas were interviewed during the fieldwork:
Probation Board for Northern Ireland:• Assistant Director.
PSNI:• Citizenship and Safety Education Officers;• Community Safety Branch;• Neighbourhood Policing Officers;• Public Protection Policy;• Response officers;• Schools Education Liaison Officer; and• Youth Diversion Officers.
46
Youth Justice Agency:• Chief Executive;• Early Intervention Manager; and• (Acting) Director (Community Services).
Stakeholders:• Action for Children Manager and Early Intervention/Choices project workers;• An Munia Tober;• Barnardo’s;• Extern Director and Pathways/Early Intervention (x2) project workers;• Department of Justice;• Include Youth;• NIACRO Director and Child and Parent Support project workers;• Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People;• Northern Ireland Policing Board;• Northern Ireland Prison Service;• Health and Social Care Board;• Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister;• Office of Social Services;• Prince’s Trust;• Prison! Me! No Way! volunteers;• Public Health Agency;• Researcher in the School of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work, Queen’s University Belfast;• South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust Children’s Services; and• The Dry Arch Centre, Limavady.
In addition five focus groups were held with young people. Participation Network assisted inidentifying appropriate young people’s projects which were contacted to seek their help with theinspection. Access to young people was facilitated with support from youth workers from:• Integrated Services for Children and Young People;• Youth Action Northern Ireland; and• The Terry Enright Foundation.The young people spoken to ranged in age from 14 to 16, including male and female youngpeople. The areas where the young people lived included South Armagh, West Belfast and NorthDown.
Snapshot-based study on the backgrounds of young people detained in theWoodlands Juvenile Justice Centre
BackgroundInspectors requested a study be carried out by the YJA Statistics and Research Branch in relation to the backgrounds of young people detained in the Juvenile Justice Centre. The information was gathered to provide contextual information to the forthcoming CJI report on early youthinterventions, and in particular, to supplement UK research with some data from NorthernIreland.
47
CJI were interested in developing background information on young people in custody inNorthern Ireland in a number of areas:• social services history of involvement;• family background and living arrangements;• health issues;• educational issues; and• criminal justice issues.
MethodologyThe Juvenile Justice Centre population snapshots for 1 April and 1 September 2011 wereselected for the analysis. In total this yielded a sample of 50 young people, 38 who were onremand, and 12 on sentence. The level of information required for young people detained inHydebank Young Offenders Centre was not available to YJA Statistics Branch, thus this studylooks only at young people detained in Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre.
Information was collected from a manual trawl of the YJA Assessment records for each youngperson. The information presented therefore relies primarily on the detail of completion andaccuracy of the YJA Assessment records.
Data from this study is contained in Table 1 in this report.
48
49
Appendix 2: Terms of Reference
An Inspection of Early Youth Interventions
Terms of Reference
IntroductionCriminal Justice Inspection proposes to undertake a thematic inspection of arrangements for earlyyouth interventions across the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. Whilst undertakingthis inspection CJI will be collaborating with the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI; withregard to the educational perspective of this topic) and the Regulation and Quality ImprovementAuthority (RQIA; with regard to the health and social care aspects). The collaborative nature ofthis inspection reflects the cross-departmental responsibility for issues pertaining to children andyoung people.
The part of the inspection in respect of criminal justice will focus on the three main elements of CJI’s inspection framework as they apply to early youth interventions. The approach to youthinterventions across the system will be assessed as regards Strategy and Governance; Delivery,and Outcomes (or projected outcomes). How early youth interventions in Northern Irelandalign with existing good practice and relevant standards where appropriate will also beconsidered.
ContextThe United Nations and the World Health Organisation define ‘youth’ as being persons betweenthe ages of 15 and 24 and most figures for youth offending produced by the UN reflect that.However, in Northern Ireland since August 2005 youth offending has been generally applicable topersons between the age of criminal responsibility (10) and the age someone attains adult status(18). It is how early youth interventions are utilised with children and young people below theage of eighteen that will be the subject of the inspection topic. This will also encompass childrenbelow the age of criminal responsibility with whom agencies attempt to intervene prior to theirpotential entry to the criminal justice system or formal diversionary processes. The main justiceagencies involved with this inspection will be the PSNI and the YJA but will also consider thework of the organisations who provide early intervention services on behalf of these agencies.
This inspection complements the work done by CJI in relation to Youth Diversion by looking atthe work undertaken with young people prior to their entry to the formal criminal justice systemor diversionary processes available. The concept of early intervention is in relation to theprevention of offending rather than dealing with offending itself.
Legislation in Northern Ireland provides the statutory basis for undertaking such interventions.Section 53 of the Justice (NI) Act 2002 places a statutory duty on the YJA to protect the publicby preventing crime by young people. It states ‘The principal aim of the youth justice system is toprotect the public by preventing offending by children’. Additionally under The Children (Northern
Ireland) Order 1995 the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety have a statutoryresponsibility to take reasonable steps to stop children getting involved in crime.
During this inspection cognisance will be taken of any findings or recommendations relevant tothe topic arising out of the Youth Justice Review Team’s work, which is due to be reported onlater in 2011.
Definition of Early Youth InterventionEarly interventions in the context of this inspection will be taken to include any of the activitiesof justice agencies that aim to prevent intervention by way of enhancing strengths and buildingupon positive attributes of young people. This firstly includes activities undertaken with broadgroups of children and young people who have not yet displayed any inclination towardsoffending behaviour but who have been assessed to be at risk of offending and anti-socialbehaviour (by virtue for example of socio-economic factors). Secondly it includes work withspecific children and young people who have been identified by one or more agencies (forexample, social care, education or justice agencies) as engaging in difficult, problematic or anti-social behaviours which does not yet constitute criminal offending but may, without intervention,lead to offending in the future.
Aim and objectives of the inspectionThe aim of the inspection is to examine and assess early youth intervention arrangements acrossthe criminal justice system in Northern Ireland (NI).
The objectives of the inspection are to:
• Assess the strategy and governance arrangements for youth intervention across governmentdepartments overall (in conjunction with partner Inspectorates);
• Examine the effectiveness of criminal justice organisational strategies with regard to earlyyouth intervention and how they support and link with overarching youth strategies such asthe 10-Year Strategy for Children and Young people in Northern Ireland 2006-2016;
• Assess the effectiveness of early intervention arrangements in the NI system by collecting andanalysing quantitative and qualitative information from organisations and stakeholders;
• Examine how early youth intervention is delivered collectively by the criminal justice systemand individually by organisations to meet the needs and expectations of stakeholders andcustomers;
• Examine and assess the outcomes of strategies and delivery mechanisms for early youthintervention against targets and expectations (where available);
• Consider the experience of groups of children and young people known to be particularly atrisk of entering the criminal justice system (for example looked after children, children in care,children from the travelling community) by way of case study example; and
50
• Examine how outcomes of early youth intervention arrangements are benchmarked againstother jurisdictions and alternative approaches to early intervention.
In relation to the objectives above the inspection will focus on projects funded by/delivered inconjunction with the PSNI and/or YJA, including:• Roots of Empathy;• Child Intervention Panels;• Early intervention projects involving the PSNI (for example, Youth Diversion Forums, schools
education, consultation and engagement projects); and• Early intervention projects funded through the YJA external funding panel (for example, Child
and Parent Support Project; FACES: Family and Child Empowerment Services; Choices familysupport programme etc).
MethodologyThe following methodology is proposed:
Research and review of documentationA literature review will be conducted by CJI during March and April 2011. Each criminal justiceorganisation will be asked to supply CJI with all relevant documentation including reports,protocols and statistical data by the end of April. Using these submissions Inspectors willdetermine whether any further information should be requested from organisations. Relevantinformation will be shared and discussed with Inspectors in partner Inspectorates.
FieldworkInspection fieldwork will take place in Spring 2011 with agencies and stakeholders. Fieldworkwill consist of structured and semi-structured interviews with appropriate staff at various gradesin criminal justice organisations and representatives of stakeholder organisations (from bothcriminal justice and voluntary and community organisations). Inspectors will undertake anexamination of statistical information available which provides an evaluation of activities, whilstbeing mindful that preventative work is difficult to evaluate. Children and young people and theirparents/guardian who have been involved with recent early intervention activity delivered bycriminal justice agencies or commissioned by them will be consulted to gain insight into their firsthand experiences and to assess the effectiveness of approaches in the view of the young people,their parents and/or carers.
Where relevant fieldwork meetings, or information from them, will be shared with Inspectors inpartner Inspectorates.
Design and PlanningPreliminary research work has been carried out which has identified relevant good practice,standards and guidance for early interventions. This will be continued during the desktopresearch phase.
51
DeliveryThe major stakeholders identified for this inspection are the PSNI, the Northern Ireland PolicingBoard, the YJA and The Children’s Commissioner, as well as a wide range of voluntary sectororganisations with an interest in or involved in delivery of early intervention work.
Reporting and action planA draft inspection report will be produced by the end of September 2011 and shared with theparticipating agencies for factual accuracy checking in line with existing protocols.
Publication and ClosureFollowing factual accuracy checking by relevant agencies and internal CJI quality assuranceprocesses the final draft inspection report will be sent to the appropriate Minister(s) seekingapproval to publish. Once permission to publish has been received from the Minister(s) a date ofpublication will be identified and communicated to the main agencies involved in the inspectionand to the relevant Department(s). A press release will be prepared and shared with theagencies involved and with the Department(s).
52
The Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has a number ofstrategies that promote and support prevention and early intervention. At an operational level,the Public Health Agency (PHA) is convinced that investment in early years interventions bringssignificant benefits later in life across a range of areas such as health and well-being, education,reduced violence and crime. The PHA’s approach is informed by the dynamic growth of scientific,neurological and economic knowledge which clearly demonstrates that creating the rightconditions for early childhood development is likely to be more effective and less costly thanaddressing problems at a later age. In particular, the PHA supports prioritisation of investment inservices that provide intensive support during pregnancy, the first five years of life and laterchildhood. Such investment will bring an important return for the individual and society as awhole.
There is close collaboration between government agencies and the voluntary and communitysectors in this area.
The PHA has introduced two evidence-based early intervention programmes to NorthernIreland: Family Nurse Partnership and Roots of Empathy.
Other initiatives include: • An increase in the current level and efficacy of the Incredible Years parenting support
programme. • Increased access for professionals and all organisations to bespoke infant mental awareness
training. This includes promoting increased uptake of training such as that provided through theSolihull approach model.
• An antenatal ‘care bundle’ aimed at maximising interventions with parents who have riskfactors.
• Active consideration through research of incentive-based smoking cessation aimed specificallyat young expectant mothers.
• Enhancing links between the implementation of existing PHA Action Plans, e.g. breastfeeding,mental health and well-being, community development and so forth.
• Developing local models such as the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust parentingprogramme and the New Parent Project which targets intensive health visitor support atvulnerable young pregnant women.
• Department of Education support for 32 Sure Start projects located in the most deprived
53
Appendix 3: Extract from Graham Allen MP’sreport ‘Early interventions: Smart investment, massivesavings, the second independent report to HerMajesty’s Government’ on early interventions inNorthern Ireland
54
areas in Northern Ireland, providing a balanced mix of services to an estimated 34,000children and their families.
• Consideration is being given to a new strategy to increase the rates of breastfeeding. • An updated child health promotion programme to ensure that universal services delivered to
all families by maternity services, GPs, health visitors and school nurses is based on the latestevidence of what is best for children.
• Hidden Harm, which provides support for children whose carers have significant problemswith alcohol and/or drugs.
• The Parenting Helpline Family Support hubs provide needs-based family support services. • A web-based Regional Family Support Information System providing access to local
information on the range of family support services available. • Independent philanthropic funding from Atlantic Philanthropies, which has supported a number
of new evidence-based early years intervention programmes both in Northern Ireland and inthe Republic of Ireland. There is a commitment to sharing the learning from these models andto the systematic dissemination of best practice in their implementation.
Copyright© Criminal Justice Inspection Northern IrelandAll rights reserved
First published in Northern Ireland in July 2012 byCRIMINAL JUSTICE INSPECTION NORTHERN IRELAND
14 Great Victoria StreetBelfast BT2 7BA
www.cjini.org
ISBN 978-1-905283-73-6
Typeset in Gill Sans Printed in Northern Ireland by XXXXXXXXXXX
Designed by Page Setup