|
|
|
|
What are the additional costs of our proposals?
38. The elements of our proposals which have clear additional cost implications are:
39. The setting up and work of local multi-disciplinary teams should not incur significant additional expenditure. Most areas will already have some arrangements of this kind in place. Where authorities decide to appoint a designated officer to support the team and the Chief Executive in devising and implementing the strategic local plan and undertaking the necessary audits, this is likely to mean designation of an existing officer with little, if any, additional costs. We envisage that an additional £1m could cover both.
40. As regards programmes and interventions, we recommend that a rising line of additional resources of £5m/£10m/£15m should be made available as soon as possible. We do not think it is realistic to wait until the end of the current comprehensive Spending Review period before taking action. If at all possible some additional resource should be found for 2000-01 and 2001-02. The costs of programmes vary considerably but based on the experience of the Freagarrach Project, a unit cost of £250,000 for a programme dealing with 60 young people a year would be a starting point. £5m would buy 20 such projects and provide places for up to 1,200 persistent young offenders. Other funding priorities would be programmes for substance abuse - there are none at present for under 16s - and the expansion of cognitive skills programmes and mediation and reparation schemes. If, as we propose, both the Hearings and the courts can access these new programmes, the funding levels proposed are at the lower end of what may be needed to make an impact.
41. We have not included in the £5m/£10m/£15m the costs of expanding diversion and bail supervision and support schemes for 16/17 year olds. We estimate these to be of the order of £1m. Additional resources would need to be found for 100% funding for criminal justice social work services to meet this expansion of services.
42. The current annual costs of the Criminal Justice Development Centre are £0.175m. If the new national resource became part of that, we estimate the additional annual costs would be of the order of £0.07m.
43. Funding of around £0.5m in each year might be required for any bridging pilots. A 2-year pilot should be sufficient to test the validity of the approach. That level of funding should allow 2 pilots. There would also be costs falling on the Hearings, both in terms of manpower (extra Reporters and panel members) and accommodation if significant extra numbers of cases are to be handled in respect of 16 and 17 year olds. The pilots would need to test this.
What should the funding mechanism be?
44. We did not find the answer to this question straightforward. We considered 3 main options:
45. The first option would give authorities maximum flexibility but no guarantee that the additional resources would be used for the desired purpose. COSLA and local authorities would support this option but we doubt that this would be attractive to Ministers.
46. Specific grant or 100% funding has certain attractions. It would offer transparency and clear links with the funding arrangements for the adult system. But it would create a divide between those children and young people who are referred to Hearings because they are at risk and those who pose risks to others and themselves. The two are often the same person. This would threaten the integrity of the Hearings system unless all funding for the Hearings were ringfenced. That in turn would create a divide between the Hearings and other children's services. Unless all funding for children's services were ringfenced, we do not think this approach would work.
47. Ringfencing all funding for children's services may be a step too far. It could also make it more difficult for authorities to deliver integrated services for children and young people. In that case, an addition to the Children's Services Development Fund seems to offer the best way forward. It builds on what is already in place and working reasonably well. It offers some scope for local flexibility but should ensure proper targeting of and accountability for the new resources.
48. If this is the option Ministers choose, we would envisage that the funding for both the new programmes and interventions and the bridging pilots would be met jointly locally by both children's services and criminal justice social work services pooling elements of their budgets.
Spending to Save
49. All in all the cost implications of our recommendations for early implementation amount to £7.07m in year 1, £12.07m in year 2 and £17.07m in year 3. This excludes the costs of any bridging pilots.
50. In the medium to longer term, if these initiatives succeed in driving down youth offending, there will be savings to the adult criminal justice system as well as to education, health, the benefits system and society as a whole. A detailed study to establish a more scientific base upon which to calculate such consequences would be helpful so that appropriate transfers of resources can take place between the relevant programmes. The arguments for greater expenditure now on effective interventions and programmes for persistent young offenders are powerful in both economic and social terms.
CONCLUSION
51.The Scottish Executive has set an exciting and challenging new agenda to improve the life chances of all children and young people and promote social inclusion. Children and young people who persistently offend are some of the most damaged and excluded members of society. We believe that the recommendations we have made fit well with the wider social policy agenda and will work to the benefit of society as a whole and to young offenders. The consultation exercise demonstrated huge support for more effective ways of dealing with youth crime and those who commit it. By tapping in to that energy and enthusiasm we believe we can not only make better use of resources but also really make a difference to community safety and to wasted lives.
|
|
|