nef working paper youth diversion: yot survey …...this briefing sets out findings from a survey of...

Written by: Ben Estep New Economics Foundation www.neweconomics.org [email protected] +44 (0)20 7820 6300 @nef Registered charity number 1055254 © March 2014 nef (the new economics foundation)

NEF working paper Youth Diversion: YOT Survey Briefing

http://www.neweconomics.org/

mailto:[email protected]

2 Youth Diversion: YOT Survey Briefing

Contents

Summary .................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4

About this briefing ................................................................................................... 4

About the survey ..................................................................................................... 4

Approaches to Diversion .......................................................................................... 6

Identification and Assessment ................................................................................ 7

Data and Evidence .................................................................................................. 7

Diversion Programmes ............................................................................................. 9

Emerging Changes .................................................................................................. 11

Out of Court Disposals and LASPO ...................................................................... 11

Suggestions for Practice Improvement ................................................................. 12

Clarity .................................................................................................................... 12

Funding ................................................................................................................. 12

Evidence ............................................................................................................... 12

Implications and Next Steps .................................................................................. 14


Summary

Against a backdrop of apparent successes in the youth justice system, prevention

work risks being undervalued and, due to mounting budget pressures, lost before its

value is properly understood.

Diversion aims to redirect young people away from formal justice system processing,

while both holding them accountable for their conduct and connecting them to

supportive services. While research strongly suggests that taking this approach in

response to low-level offending generates better outcomes for young people, their

communities, and taxpayers, there is not a settled consensus on which specific

diversion strategies work best.

As the bodies charged with both preventing youth offending and providing

interventions for those who have, Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) are central to

successful diversion. But their work in this area is not a statutory requirement, and

practice is highly variable across the country. A survey of diversion practices at

YOTs suggests that:

Budgetary pressures, combined with a requirement to prioritise work in other

areas and a lack of research evidence on the effectiveness of individual

intervention programmes renders YOTs’ continued support of discretionary

prevention work precarious;

YOTs would benefit from a greater degree of practice sharing around this

work in other localities, and a greater degree of clarity around their own role in

prevention; and

More research is necessary to help consolidate positive trends in the use of

informal responses to low-level youth offending.

Survey findings indicate that many practitioners feel that non-statutory caseloads are

making up an increasingly large proportion of their YOTs’ work. Given this shift,

together with unstable funding arrangements and limited evaluation evidence, it is

increasingly important to understand and value the impacts of this work.


Introduction

About this briefing

The New Economics Foundation and the Centre for Justice Innovation are

researching diversion practices and programmes for young people at the cusp of

formal justice system involvement: those who have come to system attention, but

who have not yet been sentenced. We hope to understand how, where, and in what

contexts practitioners are successfully working with young people to minimise their

involvement in the justice system in order to:

Identify and understand promising diversion practices and programmes with

the potential to generate better outcomes for young people, communities and

the state;

Help establish evidence for the effectiveness of diversion in terms of

preventing future offending, saving money, and generating wider positive

outcomes; and

Inform the further development and embedding of diversion in the statutory

and voluntary sectors.

This briefing sets out findings from a survey of Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) in

England and Wales about their work in this area. It may be of interest to YOT staff

and partners, local authorities, or others with an interest in this area.

About the survey

To learn more about diversion practices, gaps in services, and emerging trends, we

developed and launched a survey of Youth Offending Team managers on their work

with young people intended to prevent further penetration of the youth justice

system. Launched in partnership with the Association of Youth Offending Team

Managers (AYM), the professional group representing YOT managers in England

and Wales, the short survey was intended to be exploratory, with no sampling frame

used. It was sent to all 157 YOTs through the Youth Justice Board’s online directory;

a link was also included in the AYM newsletter. In total, it attracted 71 responses,

predominantly from heads of services and managers, but also including prevention

team managers and coordinators.

The survey focused on four areas: YOTs’ approaches to diversion, programmes in

use, emerging changes, and suggestions for practice improvement. The overall

picture that emerged was of services that, while able to report local successes,

especially around positive multi-agency partnerships, faced the future with some

trepidation. Practitioners highlighted a key tension: prevention of offending is a


headline purpose of YOTs, but their work in this area is not a statutory requirement.

While managers report having continued to promote and undertake non-statutory

work even as overall funding has been cut, this may not be sustainable given the

obligation to prioritise elsewhere. Many YOTs report lower (though, on average,

more complex) statutory caseloads and an increasing proportion of staff time

dedicated to young people prior to a court sentence (both through increased

involvement in earlier decision-making and through higher numbers of out of court

disposals).

At the same time, increasing funding pressure makes the future of this work

uncertain, threatens collaborative working relationships, and imperils approaches

that managers feel are effective and necessary.

In the following four sections, we briefly summarise thematically grouped findings.


“The skill set is very different for voluntary engagement [compared] to statutory.”

Approaches to Diversion

Within guidelines set by the Youth Justice Board, YOTs’ structures are determined

locally. Particularly for non-statutory work, there is not a single shared operating

model. A narrow majority of responding YOTs reported having separate, dedicated

“prevention teams,” or caseworkers who exclusively deal with these cases. Even

among YOTs without specific prevention workers, there appeared to be general

agreement that the work is indeed different from statutory work, and that specialism,

or adapted practice, is necessary.

This difference was described in terms of engagement

– in contrast with statutory work, where a young

person’s participation is generally a court-ordered

requirement, engagement with diversionary work is

ultimately voluntary in most instances, requiring staff

to use different approaches.

A small number of responding YOTs operated in areas where prevention work

occurred outside the YOT itself, and concentrated solely on statutory caseloads.

Overall, the most common estimate among respondents was that between 20 and

40 percent of YOT staff time is spent on prevention and diversion cases, though

there was a wide variance in responses.

Fig. 1: What percentage of YOT staff time with young people do you estimate is spent on non-

statutory work?


Identification and Assessment

In contrast with work involving youth under a sentence, the population of youth YOTs

target for preventative work is not specifically demarcated; work in this area requires

a process of identification. Befitting their multi-agency makeup, YOTs reported that

their approach to identifying young people was heavily reliant on cooperation with

other agencies. Referrals from police were most common, but schools, mental health

services, health, children’s services, and housing associations were all identified as

sources, as were Community Safety Partnerships made up of representatives from

many of these agencies. Additionally, some YOTs reported undertaking outreach

work within targeted geographic areas, or with specific individuals deemed at-risk

(including the siblings of young people already known to the YOT).

Young people were most commonly assessed using the Onset tool, though several

teams also reported using locally developed tools (including screenings designed for

use with specific programmes) and the Common Assessment Framework. Although

predominantly intended for use with statutory cases, some YOTs also reported using

all or part of Asset to inform their work with non-statutory young people.

Data and Evidence

YOTs overwhelmingly reported that they would find it helpful to know more about

prevention practice at other YOTs (89 percent agree or strongly agree). Almost all

(91 percent) reported regularly sharing data with local partners.

Respondents were more divided about the difficulty of evidencing the impact of

prevention programmes – 40 percent felt that this evidence was difficult to marshal;

60 percent felt that it was not. While responding YOTs felt that they had the capacity

to manage and analyse data, there was more division around how this data

translates into evidencing the impact of non-statutory programming.


Fig. 2: Data and Practice Sharing

Fig. 3: Data and Evidence


“[It is] difficult to see how services can be maintained under forecast cuts from partners.”

Diversion Programmes

YOTs reported a wide range of diversion

programmes in operation. These ranged from

individualised packages delivered to young people

identified as at-risk (often informal, small-scale,

and built around “positive activities”), to programmes delivered in response to anti-

social behaviour (reparation, other work tied to acceptable behaviour contracts), to

parental programmes and linkages to substance misuse treatment. The most

frequently cited “pre-court” programmes were Youth Justice Liaison and Diversion

(YJLD) and Triage schemes.

A further category of interventions were those available for use following out of court

disposals (including mediation, offense-specific responses (remediation or

reparation), and workshops on consequences of behaviour, increased self-esteem,

and character building) some in-house, some delivered by partners. Out of court

disposals reportedly often also led to referrals to support for drug and alcohol

misuse, health issues, or other mainstream services. With the exception of

conditional cautions, young people’s engagement with programmes following an out

of court disposal is voluntary.

Fig. 4: Who do you consider to be your key partners with regard to diversion work? (scaled by

response frequency)

Identified Gaps

Gaps identified by responding YOTs included speech and communication

interventions, programming involving victims, parenting interventions, and work

targeting low-level gang involvement. Additionally, concern was raised related to


“Agencies [are] becoming more insular. Financial conditions have promoted siloism, not collaboration.”

capacity issues in mainstream services leading to waiting lists and high thresholds

for involvement.

Respondents identified a range of key diversion partners

outside the team, in addition to agency representatives

seconded into the YOT. In both cases, budget cuts were

seen as placing mounting pressures on these working

arrangements.


“As [the] level of sentenced work reduces this is an opportunity to review and re-direct resources back to diversion/prevention. However, parent agencies are looking to save money and there will be pressure to delete posts to achieve this.”

Emerging Changes

When prompted to reflect on recent developments, respondents observed that their

out of court caseloads had increased (often “significantly”), and that YOTs were

becoming increasingly involved with earlier decision-making, provision of

information, and identification of interventions. This is typified by Triage and YJLD

schemes, both of which locate YOT practitioners earlier in the justice system to

accelerate the identification of young peoples’ risks and needs, to divert appropriate

cases, and to offer access to supports.

At the same time, fewer young people being

charged at court were leading to smaller statutory

caseloads at a number of YOTs (with some

observing that the resulting profile was becoming

older and more complex, with, on average, more

serious offending behaviour). Lower statutory

caseloads have not directly equated to less

demands on staff time, as in addition to the

complexity of the remaining statutory caseload,

increasing amounts of resources have been

dedicated to “pre-sentence” young people.

Out of Court Disposals and LASPO

Specific to change brought about by the Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of

Offenders Act (LASPO), there was a strong consensus that the new out of court

disposals framework was leading to more demands on YOTs’ time, with increased

YOT involvement in decision-making and more referrals. Particularly increased

demands on YOT police officers’ workloads were noted.

In terms of use of specific disposals post-LASPO, most respondents felt it was too

early to identify emerging trends in usage. LASPO-induced changes were newly

implemented at the time of the survey. Overall, however, several respondents

reported that the new framework generated more partnership work (especially with

police and social care). Others noted that local magistrates seemed more willing to

trust and accept these disposals.


“Our effectiveness has been proven [FTE decline] but as pressures increase on the team we will have to prioritise work and be forced to reduce or totally withdraw aspects of the service we know to be effective.”

“Too often the focus is centred on policy changes and changes to policing…YOTs and their managers have continued to promote diversion and prevention when funding has been cut and the provision is not statutory.”

“YOTs spend a lot of time individually developing interventions and I doubt if any have sufficient volume to truly test resource impact.”

Suggestions for Practice Improvement

Reflecting on changes that would make their non-

statutory work with young people more effective,

respondents suggested a range of ideas,

including many specific to local contexts. These

included better information sharing agreements

with local partners, access to specialist

assessments (especially mental health), and

increased access to mainstream services. More

broadly, responses fell into three related groups:

Clarity

Several respondents noted a degree of uncertainty around the parameters of YOTs’

preventive role and responsibilities. This has implications for team structures,

working arrangements, and relationships with partner agencies. If prevention was to

become a formal statutory requirement of YOTs, respondents felt that this ambiguity

would be alleviated.

Funding

While reduced budgets were a near-universal

concern, respondents also noted that In addition

to the amount of their funding, stability was an

additional worry. In light of a number of recent

and continuing changes to funding streams

(particularly including the removal of ring-fenced

prevention funding), respondents felt that more

certainty would allow for better forward planning,

including retention of specialist staff and

programmes.

Evidence

Respondents expressed confidence that their

targeted prevention and diversion work is making

a difference, frequently citing the dramatic and

sustained fall in first time youth justice system

entrants as a strong indication of this success.

However, there remains little direct evidence of

the direct contribution of specific programmes


and practices to this development. Several respondents noted that an improved

evidence base was necessary, but that formal programme evaluation seemed

impractical for reasons of cost and volume.


Implications and Next Steps

Our findings suggest that further research is necessary to document and value the

effectiveness of currently operating prevention and diversion strategies.

While respondents report that there have been positive changes in how the youth

justice system deals with low-level and first time offending, much of this may be

motivated by fiscal pressure rather than an ideological shift away from default use of

the formal system. As such, it is potentially susceptible to a rapid reversal. This

makes it especially important to establish improved evidence of the effectiveness of

non-statutory work.

With this in mind, we are currently developing a research project intended to support

YOTs in valuing their preventative work. This is intended to explore leveraging data

already being collected at YOT-level to improve the evidence base around existing

prevention and diversion work. This will inform the development of a toolkit intended

to support YOTs’ capacity to demonstrate the value of these services, and to make a

stronger case for their preservation.

If you would like to discuss this with us, or to inform us of practice at your YOT, please contact:

Ben Estep

Criminal Justice Researcher

New Economics Foundation

T: (0)20 7820 6341

E: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

nef working paper youth diversion: yot survey …...this briefing sets out findings from a survey of...

Documents