MORE HASTE, LESS SPEED?
Evaluation of Fast Track Feb 2003 – Jan 2005
Universities of
Glasgow
Stirling
Strathclyde
A. New approach forchildren’s hearings to tackle
youth crime
B. What works?
Evidence-based policy and practice
TWO STRANDS
Innovation and evaluation
New policy or servicePilot
Evaluate
Evidence of success Evidence of lack of success
CARRY ON ROLL OUT
MODIFY(AND CARRY ON)
STOP !
Children’s hearings and crime
• Children’s hearings not courts deal with nearly all offences by young people age < 16 years, where compulsory measures may be required
• The processes for dealing with offences are the same as for other ‘grounds of referral’ to the hearings (e.g. care and protection concerns)
• Reporters handle referrals; lay panel members make decisions
• Decisions should be made giving paramount consideration to the welfare of the child or young person
Children’s hearings and persistent offending
• Young people who persistently offend account for a large % crime (and hence trouble to society)
• Persistent offending is a risk factor for adult/life-course offending
• Hearings have been regarded as ‘ineffective’ in dealing with persistent offending (though so have other systems too)
• Delays in response encourage repeat offending
• Improve (risk) assessment
• Target interventions on young people who persistently offend
• Speed up processes
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
FAST TRACK
The Fast Track Pilot
Aims [Targets]
reduce time taken for decisions
[maximum duration for each stage in all cases]
ensure access to appropriate programmes
[each young person - specific plan; a programme when needed]
reduce re-offending
promote comprehensive assessments
[all cases with risk assessment – YLS or ASSET]
The Fast Track Pilot
3 SITES – 6 AUTHORITIES
Dundee
East, North and South Ayrshire
East Lothian and Scottish Borders
Began February 2003
The Fast Track Pilot
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Mainly went to reporters, local authority social work and voluntary agencies
Small amounts for police and for panel member training
Most spending was on:
• front line reporters and social work personnel• IT• admin support• specialist services e.g. youth offending schemes, mentors
The Fast Track Pilot
Like all areas in Scotland, the pilots had received additional Youth Justice funding in the previous few years
Expenditure on individual cases continued to bemainly from other sources, with the single largest component
being residential and secure accommodation
The policy innovation had multiple componentsaffecting several sets of agencies and decision-makers
superimposed on a complex web of decision-making and services
THE EVALUATION
Purpose to assess effectiveness, including cost effectiveness
Comparison in similar authoritiesof policies, service inputs and persistent offending cases
Multi-stranded – data types and sources
The Comparison: I
PILOT COMPARISON
POPULATION 714,300 665,000
UNEMPLOYMENT
FREE SCHOOL MEALS
SCHOOL EXCLUSION
HEARINGS REFERRALS
SIMILARRANGES
Comparison sites’ approaches to youth crimewere varied
The Comparison: II
PILOT COMPARISON
OFFENCE
REFERRALS
01/02 02/03
2,060 2,925
01/02 02/03
1,719 1,866
42% increase 8% increase
Research ElementsKey contact interviews
Key contact information
SCRA RAD data
Case questionnaire survey
Cost –effectiveness data
Service provider study
Intensive case study
MAINSAMPLE
42 x 2/3
10 x 3/4
58
167 + 56 = 223
111, 142, 151
84
FAST TRACK CASES307 In first 18 months
Two thirds aged 14-15
PERSISTENT OFFENDING CASES IN COMPARISON SITES
114 In first 18 monthsSimilar age pattern
Source: SCRA Update
FAST TRACK CASESSupervision
Source: Main Sample
Just over half (55%) on supervision at the start
Just under one in five ceased being on supervision
Just over one in five began supervision after flagging
One fifth – no supervision during Fast track
TIME-SCALES
Evidence showed that police, reporters and social workersprovided reports and took decisions more quickly
in Fast Track areas
a. compared with previouslyb. compared with other authorities/forces
Targets met in 90%+ cases
Fast Track did speed up processing of cases
Issue of electronic transfer of reports from police and social work
Technological, operational and ethical considerations
RISK ASSESSMENT
Use of YLS or ASSET
Pilot site cases - nearly all (95%)
Comparison sites – only one third
Source: Case questionnaires
ASESSMENTS AND ACTION PLANS
Some social workers thought that the time-pressuresthreatened the quality and thoroughness of work done
Source: Key contacts and case questionnaires
Reporters and panel members mostly saw these asimproved, more comprehensive and specific
SERVICE/TIME INPUTS
Comparison site cases had higher proportions of both low and high service time inputs (under 5hrs per week or over 11 hrs). Use of voluntary agencies occurred in fewer cases
Twice as many young people in Pilot sites (40%) attended a standard programme as in Comparison sites (20%)
Source: Cost sub-sample and case questionnaire information
SERVICE COSTS: COMPARISON
Mean expenditure per case for young peopleliving in the community
Fast track cases £8,200Comparison cases £9,200
Source: Key informant information
Mean expenditure for young people accommodated residentially
Fast track cases £87,300 Comparison cases £95,500
VIEWS OF FAST TRACKKey contacts welcomed:
concerted attention to offending
additional resourcesemphasis on faster action
Source: Key contacts
“All children’s hearings should be like this”
Improved time-scales, assessments, action plans
Good inter-agency collaboration
VIEWS OF FAST TRACK
In most cases, panel members believed Fast Track hada. promoted a focus on offending
b. BUT not adversely affectedattention to young people’s needs
A minority of social work respondents believed that attention to Fast Track had diverted
resources away from other work
Source: Case questionnaires
Perceived impacts
Source: casequestionnaires
Intervention seen by reporters as very effective in 32% of FT cases 26% of Comparison cases
Intervention in FT cases seen by panel members to have: Positive impact on young person - halfMixed impact – quarterMade little difference – nearly a quarter
Risk offending changes
Source: Key informants
YLS + ASSET SCORES2+ occasions
N = 146
Increased 10%Stable 56%Decreased 34%
Reasons for exit
Improved/responded 70%Adult system 16%Not improved/responded 9%
N = 88
Source: Key informant information
Changes in offending
Source: RAD data on Main sample
The samples in Fast Track and comparison areas were not matched, but there were only slight differences as regards age, gender, living situation and prior offending
Changes in offending
Source: RAD data on Main sample
The study data showed that there had been a significantdecrease in offending for young people in Fast Track
BUT: the reduction was even greater in comparison sites XX
?
DATA ON OFFENDING:COMPARISON
Source: RAD and Main sample
Decrease (FT) 69%Decrease (C) 81%
% of young people whose offending reduced or not
Increase (FT) 24%Increase (C) 14%
DATA ON OFFENDING:COMPARISON
Source: RAD and Main sample
10.7
5
9.17.9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Prior Post
ComparisonFast track
Mean number of offences
Changes in offending
Therefore SCRA were asked to carry out an analysis forall cases of persistent offending
(where enough time had elapsed for follow up)
DATA ON OFFENDING:COMPARISON
Source: SCRA
Changes in numbers of offencesafter ‘implementation’ compared with before
Fast Track Comparison All Scotland
Down 32% Down 55% Down 42%
Changes in numbers of offence referralsafter ‘implementation’ compared with before
Fast Track Comparison All Scotland
Down 32% Down 54% Down 41%
CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONSFast track worked well in speeding up procedures
Assessment, action plans and inter-agency co-operation were widely reported to have improved
Transfer of information was problematic in some respects
There was wide support for seriousness as well as persistence in offending to underpin targeting
Official evidence of offending indicated that reductionsin Fast Track cases were less than elsewhere
Some improvements diffused beyond persistent offending
Possible explanationsPossible explanations
Perhaps variations in police practice accounted for the difference
Comparison site lower numbers: a tribute to early intervention?
Comparison sites – able to focus resources on fewer cases
It may have been too soon to judge Setting up period; short follow-up
The time and effort spent on assessment and report writing was at the cost of direct intervention
Did some Fast track cases receive too many interventions?
Too small % of funds spent on community based interventions
Too little attention given to neighbourhood work,education and health services, residential provision etc.
QUESTIONS ARISINGQUESTIONS ARISINGon Evidence-based Policyon Evidence-based Policy
How can evaluations of complex policies best be carried out?
How wise is it to base policy decisions on official offending data?
“Official data…depend strongly on police efforts and the willingness of victims to report crime.
They are also affected by political and police priorities”Van der Laan and Smit 2006
How should policy-makers balance varied evidence about processes and outcomes?
Does evidence of ‘success’ receive as close a scrutiny asevidence of ‘failure’?
For a reasonable price?