The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FIVE: OUTCOMES OF THE YOUTH COURTS

INTRODUCTION

5.1 This chapter focuses upon the outcomes of the Youth Court with particular reference to its effectiveness in bringing about reductions in recidivism. This is examined by comparing rates of recorded crime in the areas served by the Youth Court and in other areas with similar demographic characteristics and by comparing reconviction among young people sentenced in the Youth Court with those of a similar age sentenced in other courts. This chapter also considers intermediate outcomes as indicated by young people's reported responses to orders made by the Youth Court along with the views of professionals and young people themselves. First, however, the impact of the Youth Court upon sentencing patterns is examined.

SENTENCING BEFORE AND AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF THE YOUTH COURTS

5.2 To assess whether the introduction of the Youth Courts had an impact on sentencing patterns of the target age group, information about sentencing in Hamilton and Airdrie Sheriff Courts prior to and following the introduction of the Youth Court was examined.

5.3 Comparing the sentencing of those aged 17 or younger in Hamilton in 2004 to the 2002 baseline (Table 5.1), shows that although the pattern of sentencing changed in 2003 (the year in which the Youth Court was introduced) the proportions receiving different categories of disposal in 2004 (the first full year of operation of the Youth Court) were very similar to those in 2002 (the year prior to its introduction). The introduction of the Youth Court did not, therefore, seem to have had a major impact on overall sentencing patterns of those aged 17 or younger at sentence.

Table 5.1: Sentences imposed on under 18 year olds at summary level in Hamilton Sheriff Court 2002 - 2004 (column percentages)

Source: Scottish Executive Justice Statistics Unit

5.4 There is, however, evidence that the Youth Court exhibited different sentencing patterns in comparison to business sentenced in 2004 in the normal summary court (see Table 5.2). In comparison with the Sheriff Summary Court, the Youth Court made proportionately greater use of detention and community-based social work disposals and much less use of monetary disposals. However, given the absence of sustained changes in sentencing patterns from 2002 to 2004, these differences were probably due to the referral criteria used in the Youth Court rather than its introduction dramatically changing the sentencing patterns for young people appearing at a summary level in Hamilton.

Table 5.2: Disposals for 15-17 year olds sentenced summarily in 2004 in Hamilton by court type (column percentages)

Source: Scottish Executive Justice Statistics Unit

5.4 The Youth Court in Airdrie began operating in June 2004. Concentrating on the 15 - 17 target age group, there was a sharp increase in 2004 in the numbers of young people in this age group who were sentenced in Airdrie. The disposals received in each of the 4 years are summarised in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Summary proceedings for 15-17 year olds sentenced in Airdrie by year of sentence (column percentages) ⁵⁸

Source: Scottish Executive Justice Statistics Unit

5.5 Comparing disposals, the use of community sentences (probation order, community service order or restriction of liberty order) increased in 2004 but declined again in 2005 while the use of fines or compensation orders decreased from 2003 to 2005. The use of imprisonment decreased slightly from 2002 to 2004 but increased sharply in 2005 while the use of other sentences (mostly admonitions) increased in the same year. These data suggest that the introduction of the Youth Court in 2004 may have had an impact on the use of community sentence in Airdrie in that year but that this impact was short-lived. It is possible that the suspension of the power to review probation orders in court in July 2005 and dissuaded Sheriffs from making greater use of this option in the latter part of that year with the consequence that the proportionate use of community-based social work disposals in Airdrie was the same as prior to the Youth Court's introduction. What is less easy to account for is the very large increase in the numbers of young people convicted in Airdrie in 2004 and 2005, though it is possible that the introduction of the Youth Court and availability of associated resources encourage prosecution of cases in it that might previously have been dealt with in some other way, such as a fiscal fine. Additional data provided by the Justice Statistics Unit indicated that the number of young people convicted in the District Court covering the Airdrie Sheriffdom had not similarly risen in 2004 in comparison with previous years (though it rose sharply in 2005 to 238 cases from 124 cases in 2004).

5.6 Table 5.4 compares sentences passed in the Youth Court and in the Sheriff Summary Court in 2005 ⁵⁹. This suggests that the increased use of custody in that year was attributable largely to its proportionately high use by the Sheriff Summary Court . Both courts made broadly similar use of community-based social work disposals and monetary penalties, however the use of admonitions was much higher in the Youth Court. This would be consistent with the previous finding that the Youth Court was dealing with a higher proportion of first offenders than the Sheriff Summary Court.

Table 5.4: Disposal for 15-17 year olds sentenced summarily in 2005 in Airdrie by court type (column percentages)

Source: Scottish Executive Justice Statistics Unit

CHANGES IN RECORDED CRIME

5.7 To assess whether the introduction of the Youth Courts had brought about a reduction in crime among those in its target group, and hence in crime rates more generally, a comparison was made of the levels of recorded crime in the areas covered by the Youth Courts and in 2 comparator areas before and after the pilot commenced, drawing upon data provided by the police. Criminal incidents in Scotland are officially recorded as crimes (usually more serious) or offences (usually less serious) and these are categorised under 7 headings. As the Youth Court was a summary court it tended not to hear cases categorised in groups 1 and 2 covering violent and sexual offences. The focus for the analysis was therefore on categories 3 through to 6 that cover less serious crimes and offences. Road traffic offences were also excluded from the analysis (although offences such as theft of or from vehicles would be included under category 3).

5.8 Across these categories there was an increase in the number of crimes recorded from 2002 to 2004 (Table 5.5). Whilst the largest change was in Hamilton, this was not much greater than the comparison areas. In all areas there was a large percentage increase in group 4 and group 6 crimes and offences; in all likelihood attributable to the new recording practices ⁶⁰ rather than a dramatic rise in the level of these incidents. The picture for group 5 crimes was less clear, with one of the comparison areas showing a decrease while the level in the other 2 areas had increased. Group 3 crimes decreased across the 3 areas from 2002 to 2004. The fall in the two comparison areas was identical (6%), however, Hamilton showed the largest decrease at 17%. As this category, covering the theft of motor vehicles and housebreakings, was forecasted to be less susceptible to recording practice changes, it, perhaps, was the most valid to compare year on year. However extreme caution, for the reasons outlined in the methodology chapter, should be exercised in interpreting all these results.

Table 5.5: Percentage change in recorded crime in Hamilton and comparison areas 2002 to 2004 by crime and offence category

Sources: Strathclyde Police and Central Scotland Police

5.9 Across these categories there was an increase in the number of crimes recorded from 2003 to 2005 in Airdrie, Ayr and Falkirk (see Table 5.6). The largest overall increase was in Ayr while the increases in Airdrie and Falkirk were or a similar magnitude. In all areas there was a large percentage increase in group 4 and group 6 crimes and offences. With respect to Group 5 crimes, there was no increase in Airdrie while the 2 comparison areas showed an increase. In all 3 areas the incidence of Group 3 crimes decreased but the percentage decrease in Airdrie was smaller than in the comparison areas. Again, the changes in recording practices make interpretation of these data highly problematic. There is no consistent evidence from these data of a reduction in crime in the areas covered by the Youth Court in comparison to other demographically similar parts of the country. However, given these problems of interpretation, neither would a conclusion that the Youth Court had had no impact on local crime be warranted.

Table 5.6: Percentage change in recorded crime in Airdrie and comparison areas 2003 to 2005 by crime and offence category

Sources: Strathclyde Police and Central Scotland Police

RECONVICTION

5.10 Due to the time span of this research, it was not possible to conduct the standard 2-year follow-up matched reconviction study of all the young people appearing in the pilot period of the Youth Courts. This would be the only way to produce reliable results on the reconviction rate among young people sentenced in these Courts and among similar cases sentenced elsewhere. An indicative reconviction study was completed however these results should be treated with caution, especially in Airdrie, due to the limited duration of the follow-up period and the fact that reconviction data for 2005 were incomplete.

5.11 Details were provided by the Justice Statistics Unit of the Scottish Executive reconvictions among 3 ⁶¹ young people sentenced in the Hamilton Youth Court between June 2003 and May 2005. Similar data were also provided in respect of 383 young people sentenced in Hamilton Sheriff Summary Court and in comparator Sheriff Courts in Ayr (265 cases) and Falkirk (347 cases). The resultant 6 and 12 month reconviction rates are summarised in Table 5.7. The analysis excluded 'pseudo-reconvictions' (convictions known to relate to charges before the index sentence) and, in the case of those given custodial sentences, measured reconvictions from the estimated date of release61.

Table 5.7: 6 and 12 months reconviction rates for those aged 18 years and under in Hamilton Youth Court and comparator courts

Source: Scottish Executive Justice Statistics Unit

5.12 These data suggest that the lowest reconviction rates at 6 and 12 months were among those sentenced in the Hamilton Youth Court, though they were only slightly lower than those sentenced in Hamilton Sheriff Summary Court and at the Sheriff Court in Ayr. However, 2 additional points need to be made. First, given the fast track procedures in operation in Hamilton, it might have been expected that, all things being equal, the reconviction rate there would have been higher since new offences would have been dealt with more quickly and would therefore have been more likely to have appeared in the reconviction data. Second, although the comparator courts were assumed to have been dealing with similar types of offender (in terms of age and level of court proceeding), in practice there were differences across the sample in terms of previous criminal history. The Youth Court cases were less likely to be first offenders and had a higher average number of previous convictions than those sentenced in the other courts ⁶². This is not surprising given that the Youth Court targeted persistent offenders. This being so, however, it would be expected that the Youth Court cases would have had a higher reconviction rate than the cases from the comparator courts, since reconviction is strongly related to previous criminal history. On balance, therefore, and bearing in mind the caveats already mentioned, the reconviction data for the Hamilton Youth Court are encouraging.

5.13 The Justice Statistics Unit also provided details of reconvictions among 117 young people sentenced in the Airdrie Youth Court between June 2004 and May 2005. Similar data were also provided in respect of 153 young people sentenced in Airdrie Sheriff Summary Court and in comparator Sheriff Courts in Ayr (163 cases) and Falkirk (219 cases) over the sane period. This necessarily limited analysis indicated that 20 per cent of the Youth Court cases had had a least one new conviction (at any time since the index sentence) compared with 22 per cent of the Airdrie Sheriff Summary cases, 18 per cent of Ayr cases and 31 per cent of cases in Falkirk. It should also be noted, however, that there were differences across courts in the numbers of previous convictions that the young people had, these being highest in Falkirk and lowest in the Youth Court. Given that previous criminal history is a one of the strongest determinants of the likelihood of reconviction, the differences in observed reconviction rates between the 4 samples might simply reflect their different pre-existing levels of risk. As previously indicated, a longer follow-up period with more complete reconviction data is required before the impact of both Youth Courts on recidivism can be more fully and accurately assessed.

COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TOWARDS YOUTH CRIME AND THE HAMILTON YOUTH COURT

5.14 One of the objectives of the Youth Court is to 'enhance community safety by reducing harm caused to the victims of crime and providing respite to those communities which are experiencing high levels of crime'. As part of the evaluation of the Hamilton Youth Court, baseline and follow-up surveys of the local community were undertaken. The aim was to measure the impact of the Youth Court - over the 16 month period between 2 surveys ⁶³ - on local perceptions of crime and confidence in the criminal justice system. The key findings of the survey are summarised here. The full report from which they are drawn is presented in Popham et al. (2005).

Fear of crime and impact on behaviour

5.15 There was no difference in the proportion who worry about themselves, or someone in their household, being a victim of crime. Nor was there a change in the overall extent to which people think their quality of life is affected by fear of crime. There was little difference in concerns about specific crimes. Although there was no change in how safe people felt when alone in their homes at night, fewer reported feeling 'very unsafe' when walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark.

Perceptions of crime in the local area

5.16 Respondents in the follow-up survey were more likely to think that the crime rate in their local area had improved over the past 2 years. However, there was rather more uncertainty about the future: fewer follow-up respondents said it was 'not at all likely' that their home would be broken into or that they would be a victim of crime in the next year and more answered 'don't know'. There was little change in relation to specific problems in the area, although follow-up respondents thought people who have been using drugs was less of a problem.

5.17 Overall, youth crime and offending was seen as less of a problem by follow-up respondents (53% thought it was a problem compared with 60% in the baseline survey). In addition to a drop in the number of people who thought youth crime was a problem, among those who did think it was a problem, there appeared to be a slight shift towards perceiving the problem to involve less serious crimes (such as public disorder and drunkenness, and verbal abuse and harassment).

Satisfaction with the criminal justice system and views of the Youth Court

5.18 Satisfaction with the criminal justice system in the area had improved (26% of follow-up respondents were satisfied, compared with 19% in the baseline). Despite this, and the fact that youth crime was seen as slightly less of a problem, there was no change in satisfaction with how the criminal justice system in the area deals specifically with youth crime. In part, this may be due to the high proportion who did not feel they know enough about this issue to comment.

5.19 There was no change in the proportion who thought young offenders should be treated in the same way as older offenders (2/3 of respondents in each wave) and awareness of the Youth Court had not increased since the baseline survey (42% of baseline respondents and 43% of follow-up respondents were aware of it).Views on how effective the Youth Court might be were also unchanged. Most people either thought it would reduce youth crime a little or would make no difference. Few thought it would reduce youth crime a lot.

5.20 Comparison of the baseline survey results with the follow-up survey results show, therefore, that there has been relatively little change. Overall measures of worry about being a victim of crime, and the effect of fear of crime on quality of life, remain unchanged. However, where there were differences, they were nearly always in a positive direction: there is less concern about having cars damaged by vandals or having things stolen from cars, fewer people feel unsafe when walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, and more people think the crime rate has improved over the past 2 years. More importantly, fewer people think there is a problem with youth crime and there has been a slight increase in satisfaction with how the criminal justice system deals with crime in the area - although there was no difference in how it deals specifically with youth crime.

5.21 It was always going to be very difficult to attribute any changes to the existence of the Youth Court. Until comparisons of trend data can be made with results from the Scottish Crime Survey and/or Scottish Household Survey, it is not possible to say whether the changes reflect national trends, or whether they appear to be a phenomenon restricted to parts of Lanarkshire served by it which might point to the influence of the Youth Court.

5.22 However, given that awareness of the Youth Court and views on its likely effectiveness have not increased between waves, the changes are not explained simply by the existence of the Youth Court sending a message to the community that youth crime is being taken seriously and tackled more effectively. The changes are either independent of the Youth Court, or are the result of the Court making a real difference to patterns of offending and the behaviour of young people.

PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS OF THE YOUTH COURTS

5.23 Professionals associated with the pilot Youth Courts were, on the whole, cautiously optimistic that it would help to reduce re-offending among at least some of those who participated in it, so long as they were able to access the necessary resources to address problems such as drug and alcohol misuse, unemployment and housing issues. Some professionals thought that even if the interventions offered through the Youth Courts were not effective in all cases, the ability for the Youth Court to impose custodial sentences - at first sentence or on breach of a community based social work disposal - could enhance community safety and have a deterrent effect at both the individual and general levels. In Hamilton, many professionals pointed to the difficulty of changing behaviour among the target group of young people referred to the Youth Court. Similarly, the range of problems experienced by many young people was unlikely to be addressable by intervention in the short term. For this reason, preventing re-offending was regarded as longer-term strategy, though reductions in the frequency or seriousness of offending might be achieved in the shorter term. Professionals who were more guarded in their appraisal of the Youth Courts wished to defer judgement until furnished with evidence of their impact on youth crime

5.24 In Airdrie, police respondents were particularly positive about the effectiveness of the Youth Court. They felt that the fast tracking process and knowledge amongst those being brought to court that they would go to trial without delay was having an impact. They also felt that options available to the Youth Court prior to and following sentencing, most noticeably the curfews, were having a positive impact on communities. They reported that there had been a noticeable decline in public disorder in particular areas, which they attributed to a small number of young offenders having been in custody and to the use of bail curfews.

5.25 Factors that professionals regarded as having contributed to the effectiveness of the Youth Courts included the fast-tracking of cases, the availability of a wider range of appropriate resources and services and the option of shrieval review. Inter-agency commitment and co-operation was also regarded as having helped make the Youth Courts more effective. There was a shared view among many professionals that the Youth Courts should not be viewed as a 'soft option' and that failure to comply with the court's requirements should be dealt with swiftly to prevent undermining of its effectiveness and credibility.

5.26 Professionals were mostly unified in being positive about the effectiveness of the Youth Courts in terms of bringing about speedier justice and attempting to meet the needs as well as the deeds of young people. Within this there were also, however, some concerns. For example, some professionals observed that young people who had been through the Children's Hearing System tended to respond less well to the Youth Courts. It was thought these young people had difficulty in understanding the seriousness of the situation they found themselves in, the repercussions of not complying with their orders and the different relationship they now had with their social worker. They seemed to struggle with the expectations and responsibilities placed upon them by the court and needed help in managing the transition into the adult criminal justice system. One solution, it was suggested, was to provide the services that were available to the Youth Courts to those identified as being at risk of recidivism while still within the Children's Hearings System.

5.27 Reservations about fast-tracking included the observation from the Fast Track Children's Hearings pilots that getting established and appropriate services to the young people quickly may have been more important than the fast track process per se ⁶⁴ and concern was expressed that an unintended outcome of fast tracking - the rolling up of cases and the use of too many or inappropriate interventions - was that the young person could breach their orders and end up in custody very quickly. However, the majority view was that the benefits of fast-tracking outweighed the potential disadvantages and that as long as there were appropriate interventions that could be accessed quickly, the fast track model was one to be aspired to as a feature of all summary justice.

PERSPECTIVES ON INDIVIDUAL PROGRESS

5.28 In addition to discussing the effectiveness of the Youth Court in general, the progress of 45 individual young people under supervision through the Hamilton Youth Court was discussed with their supervising social workers ⁶⁵. In most cases the social worker indicated that at least one intervention would have had some positive effect on the young person. As Table 5.8 shows, social workers were generally of the opinion that across the range of interventions there had been effective work done even if in some instances the impact was relatively minor. However, when it came to rating whether the young people worked with were likely to further offend social workers considered that at least 25 out of the 45 would offend again (and in 5 of the other cases they were unsure). In some cases the level of offending was thought likely to be have been reduced.

Table 5.8: Rated effectiveness of type of work undertaken with a sample of young people sentenced in Hamilton Youth Court (number of cases)

Source: Individual case discussions with social workers

5.29 From the 20 questionnaires completed by social workers in respect of young people sentenced in the Airdrie Youth Court, 13 young people were deemed by their social workers to be responding positively to their orders, while 5 were showing a mixed response and 2 were said to be responding poorly. The same number (13) were reported to be responding positively to the services that were being provided while 3 were showing a mixed response and 4 were responding poorly. Groupwork, individual issue-based intervention and cognitive behavioural work were regarded as being most helpful for young people. More specifically, alcohol-focused groupwork and the service provided by placement coaches were singled out as being of most help. More generally, social workers highlighted how young people were obtaining help and support through services that had not previously been available.

5.30 Fifteen young people were regarded by social workers as having reduced (or ceased) their offending while in 2 cases the level of offending remained unchanged and in 3 cases it was perceived to have increased. In 14 cases the reduction in offending was attributed partially or entirely to the young having been placed on supervision by the Youth Court and to the services accessed as a result. Reductions in offending were attributed to young people gaining employment (or having increased prospects of doing so), improved family circumstances, increased maturity and improved attitude.

5.31 Eight young people were considered unlikely to re-offend, 6 were though likely to commit further offences and in 6 cases the risk of further offending was considered unclear. Those who were thought likely to continue offending were reported by their social workers as being less motivated to engage with services. Risk of further offending was also indicated by continued offending while subject to supervision, deterioration in family circumstances, reluctance to acknowledge problems regarding substance misuse and the existence of a range of risk factors that had yet to be addressed. Those with more negative outcomes seemed to have 'not yet peaked' in relation to their offending and had continued motivational and engagement issues, generally seemed related to their family or peer relationships.

5.32 Further information about the services provided to young people and their outcomes was provided by Community Alternatives: a social work funded centralised service that provides a range of individual and groupwork programmes for young people, including those made subject to orders by the Youth Courts in Hamilton and Airdrie. The service began in May 2005 and between May 2005 and January 2006 Community Alternatives received 102 referrals from the Youth Courts in Hamilton and Airdrie. Seventy-six young people had been referred to the Placement Coach service, 30 of whom had since secured employment following periods of training in either skill seeker or career training (with another 16 young people awaiting training placements). Fifty-six young people were referred to Offending is Not the Only Choice (an offending reduction programme) of whom 22 had completed the group programme and 14 the individual programme ⁶⁶. Thirty-two young people had been referred to the DROP programme, 18 of whom had completed either individual or group work.

YOUNG PEOPLE'S VIEWS ON THE YOUTH COURTS

Services provided

5.33 The Youth Court had been the sole experience of the criminal justice system for some young people while others had previously appeared in a Sheriff Summary Court. The latter suggested that the Youth Courts were faster, provided more information about your case and provided more help. There was also, however, a perception that the Youth Courts were harder and harsher than a Sheriff Summary court and some young people believed that the sentences they had received had been disproportionate to the offence.

5.34 Many of the young people who were interviewed praised the support they had received from their supervising social worker and others involved with their case. Social workers' initial persistence in encouraging engagement through to the accessing of job advice were all highlighted as being helpful and important by young people. Generally, the young people interviewed valued having someone to provide them with advice and to share their concerns with. Group work completed as part of probation was similarly valued as it allowed young people to discover that others had had similar experiences and faced problems similar to their own. Some young people described the social work involvement as being pivotal to them changing their behaviour and some of those who were unemployed highlighted the assistance they had received in starting to access employment or further education. Others wanted more assistance in gaining employment, which they felt was made more difficult by the fact that they had a criminal record. Young people believed that being employed provided an incentive to avoid further offending but some of those who were in employment suggested that balancing work commitments and the requirements of their orders was difficult at times.

5.35 Discussion of offending behaviour with social workers during appointments was not always highly regarded by young people, with some suggesting that its function was simply to pass the time in an appointment. However, even in such cases, young people would sometimes indicate that they had started, through such social work involvement, to reflect on the situations where they may offend.

5.36 A number of young people had been sent for alcohol counselling. Some reported the counselling as positive as it helped them reflect on the role alcohol was playing in their offending and provided them with information about the effects of alcohol misuse. A number recognised that alcohol had been a major factor in their offending, with some reporting regular very high levels of consumption. For example, each of the 5 young people interviewed in Airdrie indicated that their involvement in offending had begun after they had become involved in binge drinking and that their offences were committed while under the influence of alcohol. Some young people denied they had an alcohol problem and saw such intervention as unnecessary. Others had reduced their alcohols levels either independently or, more commonly as a result of the support they had received.

Further offending

5.37 Those young people who described themselves as 'one-off offenders' had no intention of offending again and thought it very unlikely they would come to the attention of the criminal justice system again. The others, who could be described as more persistent offenders before their involvement with the Youth Court, mainly hoped to stay out of trouble in the future. However, a number had had further involvement with the criminal justice system and some admitted undetected offending.

5.38 Rarely did the young people want to continue to offend. Many wanted to work, form relationships, have their own house and car. Some already were, or were soon to become, parents. For those who were less involved in offending, the influence of family members and partners was important in encouraging and sustaining desistance from further offending. Some said they were already growing out of their offending behaviour as they matured or had been deterred from further offending by the prospect of imprisonment. Others directly attributed reductions in their offending to the social work support and advice they had received.

5.39 Looking to the future a number hoped to avoid further trouble, but thought that they may end up in situations (often alcohol-related or drug-related) that made offending likely. Many still lived in neighbourhoods with a variety of social problems and faced similar difficulties to those experienced before they became involved with the Youth Court.

THE COSTS OF THE YOUTH COURTS

5.40 The introduction of the pilot Youth Courts in Hamilton and Airdrie sought to improve the outcomes of the justice system based on changing the nature of the inputs (both financial and resource), the process (the delivery and scope of the justice system) and the outputs (the disposals and their impact upon re-offending). This section offers an analysis of the costs involved in the establishment and functioning of the Youth Courts.

5.41 It should, however, be noted at the outset that it has only been possible to undertake a very limited cost analysis. This is due principally to two factors, data limitations and robust outcome data. The Home Office does publish more detailed and comprehensive cost information for England and Wales ⁶⁷, but these data cannot readily be extrapolated to the Scottish context. Scotland has a different criminal justice system from other parts of the UK therefore it is unclear to what extent the costs associated with the processing of cases at different stages of the criminal justice system in Scotland (upon which the estimated costs of different types of crime were based) are comparable to the costs of similarly processing cases in England and Wales. The available Scottish data are limited to information about on the average amount paid in legal aid for various types of court, and the average cost per case for four types of court and the average cost of selected disposals. However, the cost data published for Scotland refer only to cases dealt with in 'traditional' courts, and do not therefore deal with the key cost issue, which is the additional costs imposed because specific new procedures have been introduced as part of the Youth Court system.

5.42 The benefits of the Youth Court system are believed to be twofold. Firstly, the extra support provided to offenders may produce a long-term reduction in recidivism, and so save a range of crime costs. However, it is simply not possible at present to estimate savings from reduced recidivism - this would require a long-term examination of re-offending rates of those who have been processed through the Youth Court system, and an assessment of the extent to which any reduction in re-offending is attributable to the new system. Given the limited time in which Youth Courts have been operating, it is simply not possible to undertake such an analysis at the moment.

5.43 Secondly, the exchange of information at the early stages of the criminal procedure may increase the number of guilty pleas and so save trial costs. It is important to state that it only possible to make a partial estimate of the cost savings that might arise from this aspect of the Youth Courts (see below). In practice, therefore, we have only very limited information on the two major cost saving benefits the introduction of the Youth Court system may give rise to.

5.44 We can assess some of the additional costs, and this aspect is discussed in the remainder of this section. However, it is important to bear in mind the one-sided nature of what follows and that this does not, for the reasons discussed above, address the important question of the potential benefits of Youth Courts.

The direct costs of operating the youth courts

5.45 The cost assessment relates to the additional costs of operating the Youth Courts - that is, to the extra costs required to process offenders through the Youth Courts compared to processing through the ordinary criminal justice system. While we have managed to obtain some of the necessary data, these data are also subject to some caveats.

5.46 Firstly, the figures with which we were provided are typically the estimated budgets made available to agents (courts, social work departments, police, etc.) to operate the new system, and do not therefore reflect the actual outcome expenditures made.

5.47 Secondly, the financial information available to underpin a costing of the Youth Courts could not easily be disaggregated across the two pilot sites. For this reason, it was not possible to undertake a separate costing of the Hamilton and Airdrie Youth Courts. Instead, we have concentrated upon a 12 month period in which the Hamilton Youth Court was fully operational and in which the Airdrie Youth Court was operational for 10 months (1 April 2004 - 31 March 2005) and have derived a combined average unit cost based upon throughput data from the two pilot sites. As noted, this does allow us to make some estimate of the additional costs of the Youth Courts.

5.48 In certain respects the Youth Courts simply replaced existing criminal justice procedures with the consequence that no additional costs over and above those associated with traditional processing would apply. However in order to achieve the fast tracking of cases to and through the court, to make available of a range of additional age appropriate resources for young offenders and to provide more intensive supervision, additional funding was provided by the Scottish Executive Justice Department to a range of agencies, and it is these expenses that represent the additional costs attributable to Youth Courts. The funding provided by the Scottish Executive in financial year ( FY) 2004-2005 is summarised, by agency, in Table 5.9.

Table 5.9: Additional Funding provided by the Scottish Executive for the pilot Youth Courts April 2004 - March 2005

Source: Scottish Executive Justice Department

5.49 Some further comments on the figures in Table 5.9 are warranted. Firstly, the majority of identified costs appear to be annual recurring costs. The agents involved identified few capital costs - there were some costs associated with the adaptation of a courtroom in Hamilton but these have not been taken into account since they are neither recurrent nor likely to apply in other areas. It is therefore interesting to note that the existing court infrastructure appears to be able to accommodate the Youth Court system comfortably.

5.50 Secondly, it is clear that the largest single allocation of funding was provided to the social work departments for the provision of reports to the Youth Courts (including review reports), the supervision of young people and the provision of a range of additional services and resources by the local authority and by other contracted service-providers. The allocations to the local authorities are made to the criminal justice grouping of North and South Lanarkshire (under s.27, 100% funding), with the host authority for the budget alternating on an annual basis. The allocation covers both Hamilton and Airdrie Youth Courts. Although it has not been possible to obtain a detailed breakdown of expenditure across the two local authorities, the social work allocation will mostly consist of staff costs.

5.51 The costs borne by Strathclyde Police include the salaries and other costs associated with the appointment of the Youth Court Co-ordinator and Deputy Co-ordinator and overtime allocation to enable officers to complete reports before the end of a shift and therefore meet the Youth Court timescales. Additional costs borne by the Crown Office include two Procurators Fiscal each in Hamilton and Airdrie. The additional funding is aimed at supporting the fast tracking of youth court cases and the rolling up of cases for young people appearing before the Youth Court. The additional funding to Crown Office and the Scottish Courts Service was made under budget transfer. In the latter case it was intended to support the use of dedicated clerks. It is likely to be an underestimate of actual costs since funding was also provided to SCS under an Education Department Youth Crime initiative. There was minimal impact on shrieval resources as Sheriffs would otherwise have heard the cases in normal summary court.

Estimating the unit costs of Youth Court cases

5.52 In costing Youth Court cases the preferred methodology would have been to derive average costs from actual spend and from this to derive overall expenditure based on the number of cases. In practice, however, this approach - which would have produced a unit cost that was less vulnerable to fluctuations in the number of case dealt with - was not viable in view of the limited data available. Instead, in order to estimate the additional costs associated with the operation of the Youth Courts it was necessary to link the overall financial allocations to the different agencies with information about the throughput of cases at different stages in the Youth Court process. At the simplest level, this involves allocating agency costs across the volume of cases deal with by the youth courts to obtain a mean agency cost per Youth Court case. In Chapter Three it was noted that the Hamilton Youth Court had dealt with an average of 32 cases per month while the Airdrie Youth Court dealt, on average, with 28 new cases per month. Overall, then, the two courts combined dealt with an average of 60 new cases per month or 720 per year. For the period covered by this cost analysis, this would involve 384 cases from Hamilton Youth Court (32 multiplied by 12) and 280 from Airdrie Youth Court (28 multiplied by 10) or 664 in total. Dividing the total additional allocation to the Youth Court by the Scottish Executive provides an estimated cost per case of £3,284.

5.53 Clearly, however, the costs of each case will vary, depending primarily upon the disposal imposed. In particular the social work costs will be concentrated upon those offenders for whom a Social Enquiry Report is requested by the court and upon those who receive supervisory disposals (probation orders and structured deferred sentences) and who therefore access the additional services for which the financial allocation provides. It is therefore necessary to estimate how much of the social work resource should be allocated across these activities and to estimate the impact that this has upon unit costs for young people appearing before the Youth Court.

5.54 Although it was not possible to obtain a detailed breakdown of social work expenditure across different headings, some additional information provided by one of the local authorities suggested that the approximate distribution of funding across different activities was as follows: assessment and case management 12%; programme delivery 34%; inclusion/desistance (access to external service provision) 40%; and other support costs 14%. It is assumed that the assessment costs are spread across the total number of cases for who SERs were requested while the remaining costs are spread across those who received supervisory disposals. It would appear that approximately 60 Social Enquiry Reports per month were requested by the Youth Courts in the financial year 2004-5, resulting in approximately 642 reports across the period in question. The assessment and case management costs also, however, are assumed to include the preparation for and attendance at court-based probation reviews. Although the preparation of review reports was, presumably, less time-consuming than the preparation of SERs, social worker attendance at court would increase their unit costs. We are therefore assuming that in terms of social work costs, SER and review preparation were broadly comparable. Assuming an average of one review per 3 month for probation orders would result in 4 court based reviews per case per year ⁶⁹ and an average of 148 probation orders active at any one time (based on the annual number of new orders made) would result in 1776 review reports on top of the 642 SERs. The cost of a social work assessment, therefore, would be approximately £68 (£163,575 ⁷⁰/2,418).

5.55 It is assumed that the other local authority costs apply principally to those supervised on structured deferred sentences or probation orders. In the period of the Youth Courts' operation covered by the evaluation, an average of 132 probation orders and 67 structured deferred sentences were imposed over a 12 month period ⁷¹. Given that the average length of a probation order was around 18 months, then each probation order can be assumed to represent an average 12 supervision months within a year, giving a total of 1584 supervision months for Youth Court offenders per year. Precise information on the length of structured deferred sentences was not available but it is assumed that they would be, on average, around 4.5 months. This would result in approximately 302 supervision months per annum. Taken together, it is assumed that the social work costs (excluding assessment and case management) were spread across 1886 supervision months at a cost of £636 per month. This would result in an average cost of a deferred sentence being £2,862, the cost of a 12 month probation order being £7,632 and the cost of an 18 month probation order being £11,448.

5.56 In comparison with the published costs of probation orders and community service orders, the costs of Youth Court supervision appears high. For example, the average cost of a probation order for 2003-04 was recorded as £1,059 (Scottish Executive, 2005). Updated for inflation ⁷² to 2004-05 prices, a probation order costs £1,085. This is the cost of a standard order without additional requirements. Probation orders made in the youth court often had one or more additional requirements attached. Each additional requirement will add considerably to the unit cost of a probation order, though by how much is difficult, in the absence of relevant data, to determine. A more meaningful comparison can be made with the costs of providing services to young people through the Fast track Hearings initiative which, though operating within the Children's Hearings System, had similar aims. Here the mean cost of services, per case was £41,868 but this very high unit cost reflected the exceptionally high costs of residential provision in some cases. The unit costs for young people who remained in the community throughout the period of supervision was £8,244 (Hill et al., 2005).

Estimating the cost savings associated with the Youth Court

5.57 The average costs of disposals made within the Scottish court system are published by the Scottish Executive (Scottish Executive, 2005), with the last data available for 2003-04. The final column in Table 5.10 presents projected figures for 2004-5 based upon the assumption of annual inflation at 2.5%.

Table 5.10 - Criminal case costs in Sheriff Summary Courts 2003-04

Source: Scottish Executive (2005)

5.58 One of the main aims of the Youth Courts was to ensure that cases were fast-tracked to and through the courts. As we have seen in Chapter 4, there was evidence that Youth Court cases were dealt with more quickly and that more were resolved by way of a guilty plea. The effect of this would be to alter the cost distribution shown in Table 5.10 (and also in Table 5.11 below) towards the "Plea at first diet" category. This being so, the Youth Courts are likely to have been associated with some cost savings associated with greater efficiencies in the processing of cases to and through the courts. For example, in the fast track Children's Hearings the speed with which persistent offenders were processed was estimated to have resulted in a saving of £355.60 per case (Hill et al., 2005). In order to estimate whether the Youth Court was associated with lower criminal case costs than the Sheriff Summary Court, a mean cost per case can be derived based on the known percentages resolved at different stages of the prosecution process. Linking the data for citation cases that called in Airdrie Youth Court and Airdrie Sheriff Summary Court ⁷³ (Tables 4.2 and 4.3) with the data in Table 5.10 produces a mean cost per Youth Court case of £282 and a mean cost per Sheriff Summary citation case of £337, producing a cost saving of £55 per Youth Court case (or a saving of 16%).

5.59 The Scottish Executive also publishes information about prosecution costs broken down by stage of case resolution. The relevant data are presented in Table 5.11. Again figures for 2003- 4 have been inflated by 2.5% to provide an estimate of projected costs for 2004-5. Linking the data on the progress of citation cases in Airdrie Youth Court and Airdrie Sheriff Summary Court (Tables 4.2 and 4.3) with the data in Table 5.11 produces a mean prosecution cost per Youth Court case of £369 and a mean cost per Sheriff Summary citation case of £383, producing a cost saving of £14 per Youth Court case (or a saving of just under 4%).

Table 5.11 - Prosecution costs in Sheriff Summary Courts 2003-04

Source: Scottish Executive (2005)

5.60 There are also likely to be savings in legal aid as a result of fewer cases in the Youth Court proceeding to an evidence-led trial, however published data (Scottish Executive, 2005) does not provide information about legal aid costs by stage at which a case was resolved.

Recidivism

5.61 While the unit costs of the Youth Court may appear high, the resources are being targeted upon young people perceived to present a risk of re-offending. As we have pointed out elsewhere, a longer follow-up period is required before firmer conclusions can be reached about the impact of the Youth Court upon reconviction among young people. It is perhaps worth noting that the estimated average cost of a youth crime utilised in the evaluation of the Fast Track Hearings was £3,556 (based upon data complied by the Prince's Trust). This being so, if the Youth Courts prove in the longer term (that is, when a more robust analysis of reconviction is possible) to be effective in reducing recidivism, this could result in the Youth Court costs being offset (to an unknown degree) by financial savings and associated reductions in social costs, whose financial value it is much more difficult to estimate. The difficulty lies in determining the benefits, both of the new system and of the old. It is difficult to quantify the benefits of any justice system, since the benefits deriving from it are largely immeasurable and include, for example, individuals' perception of their safety and security and the 'worth' of justice being done. At present, therefore, the estimated unit cost of Youth Court cases is independent of any intended benefits that might accrue from the pilot.

SUMMARY

5.62 Analysis of sentencing in Airdrie between 2002 and 2005 suggested that there was more use made of community-based social work disposals in 2004 but that the proportionate use of these disposals decreased in 2005 while the use of imprisonment rose. There was a sharp rise in cases dealt with in Airdrie following the introduction of the Youth Court. One could speculate that this may be due to cases being prosecuted that previously attracted an alternative, however it should be noted that there was also an increase in cases prosecuted in the District Courts serving the Airdrie Sheriffdom in 2005 which could suggest a wider trend not related to the Youth Court.. In Hamilton there was no overall change in the proportionate use of different disposals following the introduction of the Youth Court, suggesting that the greater use of community sentences and detention in the Youth Court compared with the Sheriff Summary Court reflected the characteristics of the young people concerned.

5.63 In terms of crime reduction at the aggregate level, changes in the recording of crimes in 2004 make it very difficult to interpret any changes in recorded crime levels in Hamilton, Airdrie and in comparison courts. At the individual level, only a limited analysis of reconviction data was possible in view of the timeframe for the evaluation. While the Airdrie data were too incomplete for meaningful interpretation, 6 and 12 month reconviction rates among those sentenced in Hamilton Youth Court were encouraging, particularly given the prior criminal histories of this sample.

5.64 There was little change in community attitudes towards youth crime over the period of the Hamilton pilot, though any differences tended to be in a positive direction. In particular people reported feeling less unsafe in their neighbourhood after dark, more believed that the crime rate had improved over the previous 2 years and fewer thought that there was a problem with youth crime. However it is not possible to say whether these changes can be attributed to the Youth Court or are part of a broader national trend.

5.65 Most professionals were cautiously optimistic that the Youth Courts would be effective in reducing re-offending, at least with some young people who appeared before them. The police in particular believed that since the Youth Court was introduced there had been a reduction in levels of public disorder in areas served by it. The Youth Courts had available to them a wider range of services and resources than had previously been available to young people made subject to supervision by the courts. Social workers were of the opinion that most interventions undertaken with young people would be effective to some extent, though they also believed that most young people were likely to re-offend. Young people were generally positive about the supervision and services they had received.

5.66 Only a limited analysis of the costs and cost savings associated with the Youth Courts was possible in light of the available data. The costs of operating the Youth Courts were offset to a limited extent by savings in criminal justice costs (court costs and prosecution costs). Although the costs of orders made in the Youth Court were higher than the costs of standard probation orders, this reflects the additional supports and services made available through the Youth Courts. Given that it is not yet possible to draw robust conclusions about the impact of the Youth Courts on recidivism, the estimated unit cost of Youth Court cases is independent of any intended benefits that might accrue from the pilot. However, these costs could be offset to a significant extent if the Youth Courts prove effective in preventing crime.

« Previous | Contents | Next »