The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

The Report of the Feasibility Group on Youth Crime Pilots

FOREWORD

A Group was set up early in 2001, in response to a recommendation from the Advisory Group on Youth Crime, to examine the feasibility of setting up a bridging pilot to refer young offenders aged 16 and 17 year old in cases where it is right to do so. The Feasibility Group reported to Scottish Ministers in the summer of 2001. Following Ministers' approval of the report, the Scottish Executive's White Paper "Making Scotland Safer", published in December 2001, set out the intention to legislate to allow the bridging pilots to be established. In January, the Scottish Executive Education Department published its Youth Crime Action Programme for 2002, and included the bridging pilots as one of its 5 key action points. In the meantime, the Scottish Executive has invested 23.5 million in programmes to prevent youth crime and to set up multi-agency youth justice teams in local authorities. The Scottish Executive Justice Department is now publishing the report of the Feasibility Study to explain in more detail the proposals for the bridging pilots.

The intention is to proceed with the choice of sites which, subject to Parliamentary approval of the legislation, will host the pilots. This will be done using the range of information and statistics on local authority services which is available to the Executive. It is hoped that the information contained in this report will assist these local authorities to make the necessary preparations for the pilots by developing new and adapting existing programmes and support systems for the young offenders, aged 16 and 17, who fulfil clear criteria for referral to the Hearing system rather than the courts.

Introduction

2. In November 1999 the Scottish Cabinet held a strategy session on Youth Crime in Scotland. As a result the Cabinet commissioned a review of youth crime under an advisory group. This group reported back in June 2000 with a range of recommendations. One of the recommendations for early implementation was that there should be a detailed examination of the feasibility of a bridging pilot scheme which would refer as many 16 and 17 year olds as appropriate to the Hearings system.
4. The report of the advisory group stated that their consultations had highlighted particular problems in relation to persistent offenders in the 14-18 year old age group. It also noted that the sharp division between the Children's Hearing system, which operated up to 16, and the adult criminal justice system, which operated after 16, tended to aggravate rather than resolve the problem.
6. The relevant paragraphs of the report and the annex to the report which analysed this issue are attached as Annex A to this report.
8. The report concluded that improvements were needed in the way in which 16 and 17 year old offenders were dealt with. The report suggested improvements in services and procedures for 16 and 17 year olds within the existing system. It also recommended that more should be done to develop a coherent bridging system which crossed the divide between the Hearings and the adult criminal justice system. The advisory group recommended a detailed examination of the feasibility of a bridging pilot to refer as many 16 and 17 year olds as appropriate to the Hearings rather than the Courts.
10. The advisory group envisaged that the bridging pilot would have the following elements:

7. The expectation was that the young person would be dealt with in the community, with custody or containment available only in cases where it could be proved that the young person presented a risk to the public or to their own safety. The report also commented that young people could be assisted in making a successful transition into adulthood if the system set out to divert as many as possible of those involved in minor offences out of the system altogether and delayed as long as possible the entry of more persistent minor offenders into the adult system.
9. The advisory group concluded that, if the proposition was feasible, it would need to be tested by pilots on the basis of court areas with the following characteristics:

• In local authority areas where there was a commitment already to bridging arrangements.
• The availability of the appropriate range of programmes and interventions.

It would also be desirable to have a mixture of areas with high and low custody rates.

Constitution of the Group to examine a bridging pilot

9. In order to examine the possibility of a bridging pilot, a Feasibility Group was set up, chaired by the Scottish Executive. The membership of the Group is in Annex B.
11. The Feasibility Group held a series of meetings and collected statistics and research information. A visit was paid to the Youth Justice Board in London which is responsible for developing new youth justice arrangements in England and Wales. In particular, the Group was concerned to share experience on effective measures of intervention.
13. Having prepared a draft report, the Feasibility Group held a final meeting with a wider reference group consisting of the original advisory group which drew up the main report, as well as panel training organisers, Children's Panel Advisory Committee members and the Director of the Criminal Justice Development Centre. The report was then adjusted to take account of the comments made at that final stage.

Objectives of a Pilot Scheme

12. Against the background described above the Group defined the objectives of the pilot scheme as follows:

13. "To test on a pilot basis whether the offending behaviour of significant numbers of 16 and 17 year olds could be dealt with effectively within the Hearings system, taking account of the issues of organisation, service delivery and cost."

14. In this context, effectiveness was defined as a reduction in the frequency and seriousness of offending in both the short and long term.

Feasibility

14. The Group examined the feasibility of mounting such a pilot scheme under the following headings:

• Legal
• Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
• Children's Hearings
• Effectiveness

The legal position

15. In terms of current legislation a 16 or 17 year old offender can only be referred to the Children's Hearing in limited circumstances. Thus, under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 a Procurator Fiscal may refer a 16 or 17 year old to the Reporter if he or she is already on supervision. A court may also seek advice from a Children's Hearing on the disposal of a 16 or 17 year old, regardless of whether the young person is under supervision or not. However, 16 and 17 year olds not under supervision can only be referred to Children's Hearings for advice or disposal following criminal proceedings.
17. Thus, any pilot scheme designed to test whether 16 and 17 year olds generally could be dealt with by the Hearing system would need a change in primary legislation.
19. To achieve a situation in which a 16 or 17 year old could be referred to the Hearing for consideration and disposal in the same way as a child under 16, it would be necessary to amend the definition of 'child' in section 93(2) of the Children (Scotland) Act. This would extend the scope of Chapter 2, of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act to children under 18. Since the purpose of the pilot scheme is to assess whether 16 and 17 year old offenders can be dealt with effectively within the Hearing system, the amendment of the definition of child in the Children (Scotland) Act would need to be limited, for the purposes of initial referral under the pilot, to 16 and 17 year olds charged with an offence.
21. A range of related amendments to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 would be required. These are set out at Annex C. The Feasibility Group suggest that the pilot proceed on the basis that:

• All 16 and 17 year olds were treated under the same procedures once they were in the Children's Hearings system, by whatever route they entered it
• The only restriction on pilot 16 and 17 year olds would be that the initial grounds for referral could only be on section 52(2)(i) grounds (ie offence)
• For 16 and 17 year olds in the Hearings system, the supervision requirement would be extended so that it could last until they were 19, that is until their 19 ^th birthday. A supervision requirement could, of course, be discharged earlier. This would ensure that the programmes available would have time to impact on the young person's behaviour in the case of a disposal made when they were almost 18.
• Secure or residential care would be available as a disposal although the kind of young person referred to the Hearings under the pilot would be very unlikely to be one for whom secure or residential care was considered appropriate. There is also considerable pressure on secure care which would make it difficult to accommodate any additional young people.
• The obligation on "relevant persons" to attend would continue, but business meetings could lift the obligation if appropriate. Relevant persons would have the right to attend Hearings. It would, however, be necessary for the panel at its business meeting to reach a judgement on whether or not the relevant person should be required to attend the Hearing. In some cases, particularly where the young person was still living at home, it would probably be beneficial for the parent(s) to attend. In other cases, where the young person was living independently, parental attendance might not be appropriate. In all cases the relevant person should retain the right to be notified of the referral and relevant persons would have the same rights as with children currently referred to the Hearings. It would be for business meetings to consider the practical application in individual cases and for the hearing to decide whether or not to speak to the child on his or her own at the Hearing itself.
• The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 would be amended to allow for a Hearing to take a decision up to 18 (instead of 17_) on the basis that supervision requirements could be extended until age 19. This was preferable to having the Hearing leave the onus on the local authority (under section 73(12)).

Further detailed consideration of these and related changes to subordinate regulations, such as the Children's Hearings (Scotland) Rules 1996, would be required, but, in principle, suitable amendments could be made to give effect to the pilot.

19. It is also recommended that a change be made to primary legislation in order to give the Reporter power to liberate detained young people from a place of safety pending further investigation. This is dealt with fully in Annex D.
21. Name of the Hearing: The advisory group has already recommended a renaming of the Children's Hearings since the name may be inappropriate for a body which deals with 16 and 17 year olds. Views have been sought on what the name should be. If the Hearings were to deal with significantly larger numbers of this age group, the case for changing the name of the Hearings to a title such as 'Youth Hearings' becomes even stronger. It is not suggested that the term 'Children's Hearing' should be changed in the primary legislation for the purpose of a pilot scheme. However, it is suggested that wherever possible the term 'Hearing' should be used instead of the term 'Children's Hearing'. If, on the basis of the pilot, it was decided to change the name of the Children's Hearing to Youth Hearing or simply 'Hearing' this could then be done by primary legislation at that time.
23. If approved, the necessary changes in primary legislation would be included in a Criminal Justice Bill to be introduced in 2002 to implement other changes.

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

22. The feasibility of the pilot will depend on a recognition by all concerned of the Lord Advocate's right and duty in terms of section 48 of the Scotland Act 1998 to take decisions regarding the prosecution of crime independently of any other person. For the purposes of any pilot, therefore, the decision whether or not to prosecute a young person will continue to rest with the Procurator Fiscal, subject to such general or specific instructions from the Lord Advocate as he considers appropriate in light of the new arrangements for 16 and 17 year olds. In taking any decision regarding a young offender, prosecutors will be obliged to act compatibly with the Convention rights of all concerned - both the accused and any victim - and with the public interest at large.
24. Organisationally, arrangements for the discussion and management of jointly reported cases are already in place between Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration. These arrangements could also be applied to jointly reported cases concerning 16 and 17 year olds. Once the necessary legislative changes have been made to extend the jurisdiction of the Hearings to deal with all 16 and 17 year olds, and new programmes are in place which will address the offending behaviour and needs of this group, the Lord Advocate would issue such instructions to Procurators Fiscal as he considers appropriate to maximise the number of young people to be dealt with in the Hearing system. Suitable cases will thereafter be identified at a local level, and will be the subject of liaison between Procurators Fiscal and Reporters, using existing channels of communication. In certain cases, Procurators Fiscal may choose, or be instructed, to obtain Crown Counsel's instructions as to the course to take.
26. It is important when dealing with young offenders that there should be the minimum of delay. In dealing with young offenders, it would therefore be necessary to set up a fast track system to accelerate the reporting of 16 and 17 year olds to the Procurator Fiscal. Decisions need to be well informed as well as speedy, but Procurators Fiscal will take account of the circumstances of the reported offence(s), any history of offending, and the circumstances and background of the accused young person when considering a referral to the Hearings System. The principal source of that information will be the police report, but useful discussions are also likely to take place with the Reporter. The Group considered that time should not be spent compiling social background reports at the police report stage. It was agreed that the information described should be adequate to make a sound judgement on referral without delay.
28. Procurators Fiscal would still retain the discretion to divert 16 and 17 year old offenders. Protocols already exist on diversion and there is no intention that cases thought suitable for diversion at present should be referred to the hearings. These cases would continue to be diverted as before.

The Hearings

26. Dealing with 16 and 17 year olds will place new demands on the Hearings. This will require the right training, facilities, procedures and resources.

Training

27. Panel Members - the content of additional training for Children's Panel members involved in the pilots should focus on:

• the legal and procedural changes involved in the pilot
• the objectives and content of programmes for 16-17 year olds
• communication issues with older adolescents
• compatibility of the objectives of the pilot and special programmes with Kilbrandon principles

Advice to Children's Panel Advisory Committees' (CPAC) members will also be required to ensure that training programmes for panel members in the selected areas are put in place in advance of the pilot. If additional panel members are required to ensure that hearings may be held, the CPAC members will need to be involved to ensure that their balance of recruitment is appropriate.

28. The presumption should be that all Children's Panel members in the pilot areas will be involved in Hearings for 16-17 year olds. All members may already deal with cases involving young people of 16 or 17, and panel members do not sub-divide into specialist categories to deal with different types of cases. As long as all members can undertake the necessary training, there seems no reason to depart from the principle. Although panel members already deal with 16 and 17 year olds, the introduction of greater numbers of those past school leaving age would mean a significant shift in the client group and attitudes towards the Hearing which would need to be fully addressed in training.
30. Reporters - the training needs of reporters would largely replicate those for Children's Panel members (see above). In addition, however, there would be a specific training requirement on criminal evidence issues. At present, most reporters have relatively infrequent experience of taking offence grounds to proof, but the introduction of significant numbers of 16-17 year olds into the Hearings system is likely to increase substantially the call for offence grounds to be proved .
32. Facilities for Hearings - as far as possible, existing Children's Hearings premises should be used. However, issues of capacity will need to be assessed as part of the process of determining the pilot sites, as many Hearings Centres are already running at or near full capacity. Use of early evening sessions may be a possibility in some areas.
34. The pilot will also highlight the need for sensitive but effective arrangements for security and safety in Hearings Centres. On current resourcing, it is not possible for SCRA to provide minimum reception facilities in all Hearings Centres. This will either require to be taken into account as a criterion for selection of the pilot sites, or as a resource issue.
36. Finally, the availability of Court time and facilities in the pilot areas will also require to be reassessed to ensure that appropriate timescales and customer care standards can be met.
38. New Hearing Procedures - fundamentally, the procedure at a Hearing for a 16 or 17 year old will be very similar to that at a Children's Hearing. The young person attending a Hearing should have the right to receive copies of the reports made available to the Hearing. This will be dealt with under the Principal Reporter's duties under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act.
40. The Court of Session in S v Principal Reporter and Lord Advocate confirmed that the Children's Hearing, when dealing with an offence grounds for referral, was not determining a criminal charge. The Court concluded that the Children's Hearings system is compatible under the ECHR, the only exception being the absence of provision for legal aid for representation. The Children's Hearings (Legal Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Rules 2002, which come into effect on 23 February 2002, will cure this defect. The scheme will apply to children and young people appearing before Hearings, including those in the pilot, who meet the criteria for publicly-funded legal representation.
42. SCRA Resources - the pilots will add a significant additional stream of work for the SCRA teams involved in them. The assumptions about the number of offences to be referred suggest approximately a 12% increase in referral rate for those teams involved. On top of this, however, given the age group involved and the likely retention by the Procurator Fiscal of warning or diversion cases, allowance must be made for:

• A higher rate of referral by Reporters to Hearings than for other age groups
• An unusually high rate of denial of grounds and referral to proof

The impact on total workload for SCRA is therefore estimated to be an increase of the order of 25%. The impact on demand for Children's Panel members is likely to be of a similar order. This is dealt with more fully in the section on Resources.

Timing

36. It is vital that all these requirements - training, programmes, resources procedure, recruitment - are all in place before the pilot starts. Unless time has been taken to get everything in place the pilot would have no chance of success.

Programmes and Resources

36. The key requirement as far as Panel members are concerned is an adequate supply of effective programmes designed for this age group. These are considered more fully below.

Effectiveness

38. A key recommendation of the advisory group was that there should be an expansion of the range of effective community based interventions for persistent young offenders. These would be for use by Reporters and Hearings and also for the use of young offenders generally up to the age of 18. It is crucial that an expanded range of effective disposals is available in the pilot areas from the very start. Without such disposals the pilots could not take place. Much could be done by enhancing programmes which are already available and in existence, some of which are being funded under the Youth Crime Review to address the needs of persistent young offenders. These programmes would have a wider applicability than simply 16 and 17 year olds and offer an opportunity to strengthen the capacity of the hearings to address offending behaviour generally . In designing programmes it is important not to underestimate the need to continue working with young offenders to prevent relapse after the end of the formal intensive programme.
40. The advisory group listed in their report the elements which needed to be included in the range of services. The group highlighted risk assessment and challenging offending behaviour as the starting point for any and every programme of intervention.
42. There is now a significant and emerging body of research which points to the types of interventions which are most likely to reduce the level of offending amongst young people who offend. In general, programmes based on cognitive and behavioural approaches, which help offenders to face up to the consequences of their behaviour, to understand their actions and to develop new ways of controlling their behaviour have been found to be most effective. Such programmes must, however, be directly relevant to the problems and needs presented by individual young people if they are to be effective. Skilful and imaginative staff, who can respond flexibly to the particular issues in each case, are needed to deliver effective and responsive programmes.
44. When these approaches are used with young people who offend, it is essential that they are located within a broader framework which deals with a wide range of issues central to the lives of young people, such as education, employment skills, constructive use of leisure and, importantly, family relationships. The requirements of looked after children and children with special needs should be given particular attention. Researchers have identified family factors as central to an understanding of why some young people offend and others do not. Work with the families of young people, to help them to make or sustain changes likely to contribute to the young person stopping offending, is, therefore, a critical element in effective practice with such young people.
46. At present, programmes specifically designed to tackle offending behaviour are not widely available to the Children's Hearings, and the principles on which they are based may be unfamiliar to many workers supervising cases from the Hearings. On the other hand, however, work with the families of young people has long been seen as a strength of the Children's Hearings. Thus, the proposed approach builds on existing strengths of the current system, by maintaining a focus on families, education and employment, whilst at the same time strengthening the focus on offending. As an illustration of what is possible, a recent evaluation ¹ of one such Scottish programme, working with persistent young offenders aged 12-15, concluded that the project demonstrated "an impressive degree of success" in reducing the frequency and severity of their offending. (See Annex E for more details of research evidence). This programme has subsequently been extended to work with young people up to 18. However, dealing with persistent young offenders is still an area which needs strengthening.

Flexible Disposals

43. In England and Wales many specific new disposals have been introduced to the Youth Courts. They include referral orders, reparation orders, parenting orders, action plan orders and, most recently, intensive supervision and surveillance programmes. The range of orders is intended to provide flexibility and the capacity to deal appropriately with all types of offending, from the relatively trivial to the most serious. Use of the different types of order has been variable. Action plan orders, for example, are widely used, but to date there has been little use of parenting orders.
45. In Scotland the criminal justice system and the Children's Hearings both already offer highly flexible disposals and forms of supervision. The supervision requirement and the probation order (through the use of additional conditions) can encompass elements of restitution, reparation and restoration. Although the potential flexibility of the Hearings' supervision requirement is rarely exploited at present, there is ample scope within existing disposals to tailor approaches to suit the needs and levels of risk presented by the young person, in accordance with the effective practice evidence.
47. An essential element in the disposals for 16 and 17 year olds would be greater clarity, at the point of disposal, about the precise nature of the work to be undertaken with and by the young person. This could be achieved through the presentation of a specific action plan, tailored to the needs and risk presented by the young person. Action plans such as these are regularly submitted through the children's hearings' system. In addition, the action plan would set out in writing clear expectations, against which both the offender and the supervising agency would be held to account, and would include restorative or reparative requirements as appropriate. Action plans like this are already provided to the adult courts when placing an offender on probation. The action plan would set out what would be done to tackle the young person's offending behaviour, identify related problems or skills deficits which required to be addressed, and outline how best to take account of victims' issues. This specific focus on victims' issues (including reparation or mediation where appropriate), and on restorative approaches in general, would be a standard core component of the new approach, and would mark a significant development on current practice. The overall aim should be to reduce offending and to re-integrate young people who offend into the civil life of their communities.

New Programmes

46. Programmes of the type outlined above, which focus directly on the young person's offending behaviour but also deal with wider issues facing many young people, will need to be in place in the pilot sites. Whilst such programmes are not yet widespread throughout Scotland, there are already a number of examples of work of this nature which have been seen to be effective and could provide models for use elsewhere. The new programmes will need to be firmly founded on research evidence of effectiveness and in due course would have to be subject to accreditation in order to ensure the quality and consistency of programmes. Work to develop an accreditation system for adult criminal justice programmes is currently underway in Scotland, and should be in place in the near future. The remit of the proposed accreditation system could easily be extended to encompass programmes to be delivered as part of the Hearings system. Under the proposals, service providers will be required to submit their programmes for scrutiny by a panel of experts who will evaluate the extent to which the programmes meet key criteria for effectiveness derived from research. Only programmes which meet the pre-determined criteria will be accredited for more widespread use.
48. The required programmes will need to focus both on offending behaviour (including specific types of offending, such as car crime) and be underpinned by the principles of effective practice. They must also promote social inclusion by addressing issues related to offending, such as

• physical and mental health
• substance misuse
• education and training
• employability
• family and relationships
• accommodation
• use of leisure.

It will be necessary to ensure prompt access to the networks providing services in these areas.

48. A key element of the focus on these broader issues extends the scope of restorative approaches being used in many jurisdictions. These approaches seek to involve victims more directly in the process of tackling offending behaviour. A range of measures is available, but can include a focus on victims' issues as part of an intervention programme, requiring the offender to write a letter of apology or, where both parties are willing, bringing the young offender and the victim together to consider the impact of the offence on the victim. This is a key element in the work of the Youth Justice Board in England and Wales. Interventions which bring the offender and victim together have been generally well-received ² by all involved, and can help bring home to young offenders the consequences of their actions. Further research into the effectiveness of restorative approaches in helping to reduce levels of further offending amongst young people would however be useful. Introduction of a victim perspective in this way must be undertaken with care and in ways which genuinely promote victim interests. It will be important to develop protocols and identify best practice in relation to restorative justice approaches.

Young women who offend

49. There is an emerging body of evidence and research which identifies that the nature of women's offending, and the circumstances which contribute to it, are different from those of men. Research into the backgrounds of women offenders suggests that many have experienced sexual abuse and personal violence, and have significant problems with substance misuse. Recent Scottish reviews and research have provided further evidence to support this finding. ³
51. Another difference is that relationships seem to be a more significant factor influencing the behaviour of girls and young women who offend than is the case for young men. In a Scottish study ⁴, for example, most girls and young women who offended reported having a partner who had offended, whilst offending was less common among the female partners of male offenders in the sample. This provides further support for the view that many girls and young women who offend seek acceptance through relationships with other young people, especially young men, whose own life experiences are similarly damaging and who may promote, rather than discourage, re-offending.
53. There is a growing recognition that, because of these differences, programmes developed primarily to deal with the issues presented by male offenders may not be particularly appropriate for women or girls. Rather than simply delivering the same programmes in single sex groups, there is a need for gender-specific services which take account of differences in the learning and relationship styles, and life circumstances, of young men and women.
55. For girls and young women who offend, such programmes need to address issues including the development of self-esteem, the establishment of rewarding and positive relationships, tackling substance misuse, sexuality and sexual health, decision-making skills, and recovery from trauma resulting from their frequent experience of physical, emotional and sexual abuse. In essence, such programmes must be directed towards assisting these young women to develop skills and competencies necessary to achieve healthy independence. It will be essential, therefore, that specific programmes for young women who offend, which take proper account of these issues, are available in the pilot areas.

Public confidence

53. A key issue to be addressed, both in presenting the pilot scheme and in operating it, is the issue of public confidence. To command public confidence, it is vital to link the pilots clearly to the advisory group's objectives. These objectives are:

• Improved community safety by reducing youth crime (ensuring that the small number of highly disruptive recidivist offenders (often drug related) and those where violence is a factor, are dealt with in a way that maintains public confidence and safety).
• Effective, consistent (in terms of quality and availability) and quality assured interventions for children and young people who offend
• Better outcomes for all children and young people, including the most deprived and vulnerable
• Greater emphasis on prevention, diversion and the concept of restorative justice
• A clear recognition of the needs of victims and of the need for young offenders to recognise the damage they may have done to the victim
• Making best use of resources by moving from expensive and often damaging institutional disposals to effective, quality assured, community based interventions. The pilot is designed to achieve these objectives primarily by providing programmes which can help to reduce the frequency and seriousness of offending.

54. The Lord Advocate, in issuing prosecution guidelines to divert as many 16 and 17 year old offenders as appropriate to the Hearings system for the purpose of this pilot, will instruct Procurators Fiscal to take full account of public interest and public safety in all such cases. The Advisory Group on Youth Crime "believe that young people can be assisted in making a successful transition into adulthood if the system sets out to:

• Divert as many as possible of those involved in minor offences out of the system altogether, and
• Delay as long as possible the entry of the more persistent minor offenders into the adult system" (page 9, para 31 of its Report)

Accordingly, where 16 and 17 year olds are reported to the Procurator Fiscal for serious offences that merit prosecution on indictment, or for road traffic offences that on the face of it merit disqualification, the presumption will continue to be in favour of prosecution in the adult criminal court. The Lord Advocate will exercise his discretion on a case by case basis and the adult courts will continue to deal with serious offenders.

55. The key to achieving the group's objectives and, therefore, to winning public confidence, will be demonstrating the quality and effectiveness of the programmes that will address the behaviour of these persistent young offenders. The issue of disposals has already been discussed above. It will be important that these are presented as having a proven record of effectively dealing with offending, thus emphasising the need to find an effective response which will reduce offending, whilst protecting the public from further offending behaviour where there could be significant trauma to victims.

Victims

56. A clear communication strategy is needed, particularly in the pilot areas. The key messages of greater effectiveness desired from programmes specifically aimed at 16 and 17 year olds and the full account to be taken of public interest and public safety needs to be emphasised. In the pilot areas the community safety partnerships could be used as a means of transmitting these messages to the interests most closely involved. These same interests should be kept fully informed throughout the partnership.
58. Public confidence will benefit from a clear focus on victims. The development of the Scottish Strategy for Victims provides a natural framework for this. The Strategy recognises the need to put mechanisms in place to take the needs and concerns of victims into account in criminal justice processes and this is an issue which the pilots will also need to address ⁵. If the pilots are successful then they would lead to a reduction in the numbers of victims who suffer as a result of youth crime.

Research

58. It will be necessary to design and commission research to inform the development of the pilot and to evaluate its effectiveness. Full evaluation of the pilot will be essential to find out whether and in what way it has achieved its aims and objectives.
60. It is unlikely that the pilot could be implemented before summer 2003. This provides the opportunity in the first instance to review available information about resources for youth justice for 16/17 year olds in Scotland which will facilitate identification of suitable pilot sites. A preliminary review of available statistics and research on 16 and 17 year old offenders and of court statistics has been undertaken to provide a current profile of this group of offenders and of process in dealing with them. Audit Scotland are also undertaking a wider audit of youth justice covering the age range 8 to 21 and have completed an initial baseline study. ⁶ The Scottish Executive has drawn on the material collected to date by Audit Scotland in its review in order to limit the burden on local authorities and other agencies in providing information on this high profile issue. In addition, local authorities have been co-ordinating audits of services including programmes for young offenders and resources available to deal with them in response to the Youth Crime Advisory Group's Action Plan. This information will inform the selection of pilot areas in spring 2002 and provide initial baseline data.
62. Building on the material reviewed to inform selection of the pilot sites, a baseline study will be commissioned in 2002 to expand the collection of key information about these sites and possibly a number of comparison sites. This baseline will inform evaluation of the pilot. It will be important for the objectives of the baseline study to reflect the key aims and objectives of the pilot and its operation in different sites in order to ensure that appropriate information is collected to facilitate evaluation. Information will be collected on the development of the pilot schemes before they come into operation in the summer of 2003. The baseline study will ensure that short term (for example, the number of 16/17 year olds referred to the reporter rather than the courts or the level of custody for 16/17 year olds in pilot sites) and longer term (e.g. re-offending rates for young people dealt with by the pilot schemes) outcome measures for the pilot are in place.
64. The evaluation of the pilot should be commissioned concurrently with implementation to ensure that relevant issues arising are identified and described to assist the development of future policy and practice. The evaluation will include assessment of:

• the number of 16/17 year olds dealt with within the Hearings system;
• the impact on re-offending for this group;
• the costs and cost effectiveness of operating the pilot (in comparison with alternative arrangements);
• the organisational implications of implementing the pilot;
• the effects on decision making for 16/17 year old offenders;
• the characteristics of effective practice with this group;
• public perceptions of this approach to dealing with young offenders.

In addition, it will be essential that monitoring and evaluation is built in to individual programmes for 16 and 17 year old offenders which are introduced in the pilot areas as the success of the pilot will depend critically on the effectiveness of the programmes available to young offenders. This monitoring and evaluation information will feed into the overall evaluation of the pilot.

62. Some important outcome measures from the pilot will not necessarily be available in the short term to inform the further development of policy and practice with this group (for example, the impact on re-offending). The baseline and the evaluation studies will require careful specification of outcomes and a realistic timetable to ensure that the evaluation provides reliable and valid information for future developments.

Resources

63. In its report the Advisory Group estimated that funding of about 0.5m per year in total might be required for any bridging pilots. It considered that a two-year pilot should be sufficient to test the validity of the approach and estimated that the funding would allow for at least two pilots, depending on their size. No detailed calculations were made.
65. The Feasibility Group agrees that two years should be sufficient for the pilot schemes and that there should be two or three pilots. It also considered that any pilot should apply within the whole of a local authority area. The Group would also recommend that the pilots should be in different types of areas: one predominately urban and the other(s) semi-urban or rural.
67. The main costs of any pilot would fall on the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration and on the local authority. As far as the SCRA is concerned, extra staff would be needed to deal with the additional work of 16 and 17 year olds referred to the Reporter under the pilot and additional Children's Panel members would need to be recruited and trained. In relation to local authorities, more detailed Social Inquiry Reports might be needed and social workers would need to attend hearings for 16 and 17 year olds. Most importantly, local authorities would need to develop and provide a greater range of community disposals to meet the needs of 16 and 17 year olds. The nature of these additional services has already been described. It is impossible to make a precise estimate of what these would cost for the pilots until the authorities have been chosen. The main factors which will determine the extra costs will be:

65. 2. The size of the authority.
    4. The level of existing services (the better developed the services are already, the less additional services will be required).
    6. The stage reached in the development of services under the present Youth Justice initiative (substantial investment is being put into additional services under the Youth Justice programme).
    8. The level of offset from adult services (the extent to which new services specifically aimed at 16 and 17 year olds might replace less suitable adult services).

66. In addition, there could be some additional costs on the police from running the fast-track procedure. As far as the Crown Office is concerned, 16 and 17 year olds are already dealt with by Procurators Fiscal. On the one hand, there would be a reduction in the number of prosecutions in the Sheriff Court as a result of more cases being dealt with in the Hearings system, but this would be balanced by the greater amount of time spent by Procurators Fiscal discussing cases with the Reporter, and others.
68. The Feasibility Group took the view that up to 0.5m per year should be allowed per pilot but the detailed figures could only be drawn up once the pilot areas had been chosen and the services already there or planned had been reviewed. The power already exists in primary legislation to finance this through the 100% funding mechanism for Community Justice Services, although secondary legislation is required to commence the provision.

Conclusion

68. It would be feasible to mount pilot schemes to test the effectiveness of referring as many 16 and 17 year old offenders as appropriate to the hearing system.
70. For the pilots to take place it would be necessary to make changes in primary legislation as described (paragraphs 14 - 18 and Annexes C and D).
72. To minimise delay in dealing with young offenders it would be necessary to set up a fast track system to accelerate the reporting of 16 and 17 year olds to the Procurator Fiscal. (Paragraph 23).
74. For the pilots to be a proper test of effectiveness each pilot area would have to have available to it the right range of programmes and disposals aimed at the 16 and 17 year old age group, based on research and in due course accredited. These programmes should have their major focus on addressing offending behaviour through clear written action plans and should also focus strongly on restorative justice. (Paragraphs 37 - 51 and Annex E)
76. The Hearings - both panel members and reporters - would require training to prepare them for the extension of their role. They would also require additional resources to deal with the additional numbers of cases. (Paragraphs 25-34)
78. The Lord Advocate will require to issue Prosecution Guidelines to Procurators Fiscal to refer as many 16 and 17 year old offenders as appropriate, within the scope of the pilot, to the Hearings (paragraphs 21-24 and 53).
80. Public safety and public confidence are primary considerations, and so a clear communication strategy would be needed to explain to the public, particularly in the pilot areas, the rationale and basis of the pilots: a more effective approach to 16 and 17 year old offenders with full regard to public safety and public interest. (Paragraphs 52-56)
82. Resource requirements cannot be accurately determined until the pilot areas have been chosen. Subject to this, however, each pilot scheme may cost up to 0.5m per year per area. It is recommended that there should be two or three pilots: one in an urban area, the other(s) in a semi-urban or rural area. (Paragraphs 62-66)
84. The pilot schemes should be fully evaluated (paragraphs 57-61).

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
JUNE 2001

« Previous | Contents | Next »