SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Back

1. There is much consensus of view about what works best to prevent and reduce crime. The general approaches to the most effective interventions can be summarised as:

• early intervention works - the earlier the better - and should be a key guiding principle underpinning crime prevention;
• a collaborative multi-agency approach is required, including the statutory and voluntary sectors, beginning with the health, education and social work sectors and community initiatives, ie long before the criminal justice system comes into play;
• an inclusive approach is required: for example excluding children from schools and other support systems removes stabilising influences in their lives and excludes them from the normalising effects of their peers;
• prevention strategies should include community-based interventions which allow for local variation to respond to differing local circumstances/attitudes;
• an understanding of risk factors can be used to identify children, families, schools or communities which would most benefit from early intervention;
• since risk factors seem to have cumulative effects, prevention strategies should be designed to target multiple rather than single risk factors.

2. The risk factors differ little from risk factors associated with other anti-social or undesirable behaviour. Programmes to prevent criminality can therefore be part of wider programmes to address a range of problematic outcomes for young people: such as substance abuse, school failure and teenage pregnancy. Such programmes are likely to be more cost-effective than initiatives which focus only on preventing crime, since they deliver multiple outcomes.

3. Some US studies have sought to examine the cost-effectiveness of interventions which tackle the risk factors associated with future offending. They have produced encouraging results. Data is available from a range of programmes, including family therapy and parent training, family preservation, home-visiting and pre-school education programmes. The most impressive results seem to be recorded in the last 2 categories, where nurses, health visitors and social workers have been involved in supporting and sometimes training parents of young children:

• a recent cost-benefit analysis of one (much quoted) study – the High Scope/Perry Programme – indicated a return of $7 for every $1 invested. The study, begun in the 1960s, tracked over 30 years the fortunes of 58 children in low socio-economic families who received a 2 year high quality pre-school education programme and whose mothers received home visits for the same period. Compared to the control group, by age 19 arrest rates were 40% lower. They also performed better in school and adult education, were more likely to graduate and get employment and teenage pregnancy rates were 50% down. By age 27, only 7% had been arrested 5 times or more compared with 35% of the control group.

4. As well as the effects on criminality, the example illustrates the potential for improvement across a range of outcomes with the corresponding cost-benefits. Another programme in New York State provided pre and post-natal advice and support to low income women. 6% of their children had been convicted for criminal offences by age 15 compared to 22% in the control group, which also committed more serious offences.

5. One can question whether the findings of successful US interventions are directly applicable in Scotland: the programmes have been developed within very different cultures, with very specific socio-economic backgrounds for the target groups, and the sample sizes are relatively small. In addition, it may well be that the US target groups began from a lower base in terms of health and social care and educational support than would be the case in most UK communities, and therefore the results of interventions were greater than would be the case in the UK. But they do give an indication of what can be achieved. The seeming absence of comparable UK data points to the need for the effectiveness of local intervention programmes to be similarly evaluated over time.

6. Again, there is a fair degree of consensus around what works best based on research evidence and the experience of practitioners. The available evidence suggests that:

• neither punishment on its own nor incarceration are particularly effective interventions for young offenders
• it is not true that nothing works
• some things can prevent reoffending: eg cognitive behavioural projects (particularly with older children), social skills training, aggression reduction/anger management techniques, and diversion strategies (mediation and reparation programmes, confronting offenders with the consequences of their behaviour, community based programmes)
• a key requirement is ensuring that those dealing with young offenders have access to a range of properly resourced measures, tailored to particular age groups: one size does not fit all
• it is important to differentiate between the minority of young offenders who commit most of the serious offences and the majority of young offenders who commit less serious crimes, mostly property crimes. That said, both groups respond to the same risk factors: the differentiating factor seems to be the degree of exposure: the greater the number of risk factors children are exposed to, the earlier they may commit their first offence and the more likely they are to become persistent offenders.

7. On the whole, locking children up is unlikely to be effective in addressing offending behaviour. There is however a very small number of young offenders whose behavioural problems and offences require them to be kept in secure units.

8. Some of the outcomes from research into effective interventions with offenders of all ages – ie not youth-specific – are also likely to be relevant to dealing with young offenders too:

• risk classification - ie more intensive programmes should be targeted at high risk offenders. In the youth crime context this suggests focussing on the persistent offenders who account for a disproportionately high amount of crime;
• the importance of identifying those factors which contribute directly to criminal behaviour – eg anti-social attitudes; drug dependency; low level educational and vocational skills; poor cognitive and interpersonal skills;
• within probation programmes best results are achieved where teaching styles match offenders’ learning styles, and most offenders require active, participatory approaches (eg role play) rather than unstructured or over-didactic methods;
• structured drug treatment programmes such as methadone prescribing can significantly reduce drug related crime, since users frequently rely on crime to finance their drug habits. The profile of drug abuse amongst young people can differ significantly from that of adults – different drugs; different forms of abuse – and therefore drug treatment programmes for young people should specifically tailored to meet their different treatment needs.

9. Using approximate figures, the following generalisations can be made:

• custodial disposals are relatively expensive: on average, £503 per person per week in prison; £427 per person per week in a Young Offenders Institution;
• residential disposals are more expensive still: £1,120 per child per week in residential care; around £2500 per child per week in a secure unit;
• the cost of community-based disposals varies significantly from relatively low-cost supervision requirements in the community to the most expensive intensive intervention programmes for persistent offenders
• there is an almost unanimous view amongst practitioners, professionals and academics that non-custodial disposals are far more likely to prevent re-offending, even with the most persistent offenders: interim findings from the one project’s own report indicate that re-offending rates have been cut by over 60% in relation to previous offending patterns – however this figure cannot be confirmed until the final independent evaluation is published in September 2000;
• this study did not find evidence about the effectiveness of secure units in preventing re-offending;
• overall, therefore, community based, non-custodial disposals are on the whole likely to be the most cost-effective disposals for young offenders. The costs of even the most expensive community based programmes targeted at persistent offenders are broadly similar to those of a Young Offenders Institution and are far more likely to prevent re-offending.

10. There is a striking consensus in the research literature, confirmed by professionals in the field, about the risk factors which predispose young people to offending behaviour, about the most effective ways of counter-acting those risk factors and about the most effective ways of dealing with those who have started offending. In summary:

• risk factors are multiple and detectable early in a child’s life;
• the earlier risk factors are addressed the better;
• risk factors for youth offending can be addressed as part of wider programmes to improve the life circumstances and life chances of the children at risk;
• exclusion – from home, school, community – tends to exacerbate, not address, risk factors;
• locking up older children who have embarked on a pattern of offending behaviour is unlikely to break the pattern. For most young offenders whose crimes do not fall into the ‘serious’ category, non-custodial disposals are far more likely to be more effective and more cost effective.

The information contained on this WWW site is Crown Copyright but may be reproduced without formal permission or charge for personal or in-house use. © 1997-1999.

Making It Work Together