Audit Committee, 12 Sep 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Official Report 228KB pdf

---

“Dealing with offending by young people”

Agenda item 4 is the Auditor General for Scotland's report, "Dealing with offending by young people".

This report is on a complex and wide-ranging area of public policy that involves many agencies and budgets. I will introduce the report, but in answering your questions I will rely on Antony Clark, who ran the project, and David Pia, who is the director of public reporting.

The report is the third piece of work that Audit Scotland has done in the area of youth offending. We produced a report in 2002 and a follow-up report in 2003, both of which involved me and the Accounts Commission. The current report is a review of progress since the earlier reports were made to Parliament.

As committee members are fully aware, there has been a lot of activity in this area, such as initiatives, new legislation and programmes. We have tried to capture them in the report, but the world has moved on significantly since 2002.

The youth justice improvement programme, which was published towards the end of the term of the previous Administration, is interesting. Much of what is in it echoes earlier Executive policy commitments, recommendations by the previous Audit Committee in its 2003 report and recommendations in our report. That indicates just how intractable some of the problems are and the limited progress that has been made in securing effective implementation of policy in the area.

We had difficulty estimating how much is spent on dealing with youth offending in Scotland. Our best estimate is that funding increased from £235 million in 2000-01 to £336 million in 2005-06. We also concluded that the priority in policy terms that has been given to youth justice services in recent years has delivered positive changes, but it is still not possible to demonstrate clearly that the resources are providing value for money or that they are being used to best effect.

My remarks come under three broad headings: the first is national standards and programmes at Scotland level, the second is targets and the third is timeliness of reporting.

The introduction of the national standards has contributed to service improvements, but there are still significant weaknesses in the performance management arrangements and some important national targets have not been met. The national targets that were introduced in 2002 provided a clear set of guidelines and expectations for the work of the local youth justice strategy groups. In doing so, they strengthened the focus on youth justice across the partnership agencies involved, which helped to support improvements in integrated working. However, there has been no comprehensive national reporting on progress against the standards and there are significant gaps in the available performance information, which is a significant issue.

Some of the programmes and services for young people who offend, such as the restorative justice services, recognise the improvements and developments in policy in this area. Generally, partnership working has improved, mainly through the work of the youth justice strategy groups, but there is a widespread view—which we picked up in the study—that there needs to be a stronger emphasis on prevention and early intervention. As part of that, we found a significant need in many parts of Scotland for much better engagement of education and health services. That is a significant issue.

The achievement of the Scottish Executive's target to reduce the number of persistent young offenders in Scotland by 10 per cent was central to the national standards. However, the number of persistent young offenders rose by 19 per cent between 2003-04 and 2006-07, so the trend was in completely the wrong direction, unfortunately. Of course, as I am sure members are aware, the persistent young offender target was a narrow measure of service performance as it focused on one small group of young people within the youth justice system. We must recognise that.

I will comment briefly on some of the youth justice legislation. The introduction of antisocial behaviour orders for 12 to 15-year-olds has created tensions with other approaches to dealing with young offenders. It is not clear how far the Scottish Executive was able to consider the impact of the antisocial behaviour legislation on existing arrangements for dealing with offending by young people prior to the legislation's introduction. We have picked up evidence that many councils have found it quite difficult to strike a balance between the child-centred focus of the children's hearings system and the antisocial behaviour legislation, which is designed to protect and support communities.

There were significant improvements in the timeliness of police reporting in 2006-07. The Scottish Children's Reporter Administration received 85 per cent of offence-based police reports within the time standard of 14 calendar days. There have also been noticeable improvements in the times involved in reporter decision making. Since 2002-03, the average time taken from the receipt of an offence-based referral by the reporter to a decision being reached by a children's hearing has fallen from 95 to 71 days, so it is pretty well at target.

However, despite a small improvement, the time taken for social work reporting remains unacceptably long. In 2006-07, only 48 per cent of offence-based social work reports were submitted to the reporter within the time standard, which was within 20 working days of request. The target is 75 per cent, so social work services are achieving 48 per cent against the target. That is a 16 per cent improvement since the baseline data were collected in 2003-04, but that small improvement takes place at a time of significant increases in the number of social work reports that are being requested, so social work services have a problem of volume, and are still falling well short of target.

There is a lot in the report and we will do our best to answer any questions that you have.

Indeed. Once again, I throw the questioning open to members.

Mr Black mentioned the problem of the different focus of antisocial behaviour orders as opposed to other approaches to dealing with young offenders. I ask him to expand on that. Does that difference in focus create problems between public services rather than being simply—or perhaps it is not simple—a difficulty for councils? How major a problem is it?

We are picking up the sense that it is a significant problem. The children's hearings system is focused on the consideration of the child's position and what needs to happen to help that child in their personal situation, whereas the antisocial behaviour legislation is geared much more towards the interests of the community whose quality of life is being affected by persistent young offenders. Therefore, there is a tension between the interests of housing departments in maintaining the quality of life in housing areas and the work of the children's hearings system. I am sure that Antony Clark will be able to expand on that.

We identified the issue as being quite significant, but we also need to refer to another finding in the report, which is that the introduction of the national standards has improved partnership working. Yes, it was difficult for police, social work and other agencies when the antisocial behaviour legislation was introduced, but we found evidence of the difficulty being addressed by better partnership working at the local level. It is a problem, but it may be becoming less of a problem as new approaches become more embedded in the different agencies' working practices.

There is a better line, then.

Yes.

Mr Black mentioned that the number of persistent young offenders has gone up by 19 per cent. Is there a difference between offenders who go into penal institutions and those who are on community programmes? Is there a higher chance of them becoming persistent offenders if they interact with other young offenders?

It is important to bear in mind that we are talking about comparatively small numbers. Although a real problem exists in some parts of Scotland, throughout Scotland as a whole 1,400 youngsters are classified as persistent young offenders, which is 0.3 per cent of children aged eight to 16. Relatively small numbers of children have severe problems—it is important to consider the issue in that context. The study did not examine directly the issue that the member mentioned, but the team may be able to provide some information.

Mr Black is right that we did not examine in detail the different trajectories of persistent young offenders, the services that they receive or the outcomes from those service interventions. One issue that we identify in the report is the need for much better information about which services are effective and lead to improved outcomes for young people, such as improved job opportunities and life chances.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the rising number of persistent young offenders is attributable to the influence and impact of community wardens on the ground liaising with young people and referring to various agencies, including the police, incidences of offenders in the community? I imagine that the wardens are bound to have had an effect on the figures. Although we think that such an unexpected turnaround in the figure is negative, it could be a result of the fact that community wardens have been playing the role that many of us expected them to play.

Mr Coffey's point is reasonable, but one of the key findings from the report is about the lack of good evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions. The fact that we cannot answer your question demonstrates that.

To take the discussion on slightly, I mentioned a moment ago that a comparatively small number of youngsters are persistent young offenders. Several factors influence that number, and it can be volatile for several reasons. For example, if a significant number of the persistent young offenders are 15 to 16-year-olds, they might enter the adult justice system fairly soon. Their offending pattern might not change, but the number of persistent young offenders will reduce. Another factor that may be significant is that, given that the target is an important national one, local agencies, through partnership working, will have put extra resources into achieving it. In this study and in others, we have found that, if one is considering an issue more intently, the number of reported incidents often goes up. That effect might influence the number. As we are talking about a small number in the first instance, we can understand why the figure is volatile.

Fundamentally, we need better local evaluation of the interaction of all the programmes. That cannot be done through a national evaluation study; it must be done locally.

Antony Clark may have something to add.

Mr Coffey's main point is picked up in the report, which points out that the increased resources that are being put into community wardens and other measures are likely to lead to increased detection.

Mr Black mentioned the time taken for social work reporting, which remains unacceptably long. Will you explore that comment further? Is there only a volume problem, or are there implied resource and staffing problems?

The number of social workers has increased significantly in recent years—we report the numbers in part 5 of the report. The number of filled posts has increased by almost 40 per cent since 2000, which is getting on for 500 extra social workers. However, I have two points on that. First, although the number of social workers has increased significantly, many of them are comparatively young and inexperienced. One issue that we raise in the report is whether a challenge exists for social work authorities to provide the relatively new staff with the support and guidance that they need to be effective. Clearly, the staff will be more effective if they are part of good teamworking between the agencies.

My second point is to reflect the growing volume of activity that social workers are expected to undertake. As I mentioned a moment ago, time standards are not being observed as the volume of work that they are expected to undertake increases. The Association of Directors of Social Work is not terribly comfortable with the time target. I understand that the association's view is that, unlike the police, social workers need to engage to a much greater extent with the young person and their family circumstances before they make their report, which takes time and effort, so it is more difficult for social workers to control how long such cases take to process. Mr Welsh points to the need for social workers to develop much better management information so that managers have a handle on what is happening at the local level.

I agree with Mr Black. At paragraph 79 of the report, I highlight a couple of points that we received from the Social Work Inspection Agency concerning social work practice. The agency highlighted a number of difficulties with some of the management practices in social work departments, around quality of assessments and supervision. That might have a bearing on the timings of social work reporting.

Allow me to pursue the operational implications of what you say. I know of experiments in which social workers have been deployed in schools to liaise with guidance staff, who are often the first to pick up that young people are in trouble. Could that type of operational practice impact on timeous reporting?

I am sorry to say that the way in which we approached the study was to follow up on the recommendations that we made in previous reports. No recommendation focused on the area that you mention, so we did not look at it in great detail as part of the study. However, it is an interesting question, and I am sure that the Social Work Inspection Agency will want to pick up on it if it follows up on such issues in the future.

As I might have mentioned earlier, the general issue on which we comment in the report is the need in many of the local partnership areas for education and health authorities to engage more positively with the problem, not least for the reason that the convener outlined.

I was struck by the variation in the number of offence referrals as opposed to the number of care and protection referrals shown in exhibit 15, which is referred to in paragraph 65. You say that you do not know why there is major variation, but when I see such huge variation a light bulb immediately goes off in my head and I want to know what is going on. I wonder whether the variation is linked to the Tayside pre-referral screening group that is mentioned in the first paragraph of exhibit 16. Does that group account for the fact that overall referrals in Tayside appear to be much lower? Can you add any colour to that? Although it is clear in your report that you could not draw any conclusions, it is an interesting area to follow up.

It is an enormously interesting area to follow up, and an issue that has been around for some time. In the report, we talk about the Scottish Executive's commitment to what it calls the getting it right for every child agenda, which is based on the review of the children's hearings system. The review was designed to make effective use of the children's hearings system to ensure that children are referred to the system only when it is the most appropriate avenue for them to follow.

I suspect that the variation in referral rates reflects differences in police practices. Although I do not want to be too categorical, it is possible that the good practice in Tayside reflects the effective joint working in that area. Picking up on the points in the previous reports that the committee has discussed, sharing good practice and absorbing it throughout the system in different parts of the country apply equally to youth justice as to out-of-hours services and long-term conditions. There is an issue here about understanding the good practice of partnership working and ensuring that resources are targeted effectively.

That is helpful. I have heard anecdotally from the police that when they make referrals to the hearings system, they bounce straight back. Although they make more referrals, nothing happens and the process just goes round another wheel. It is the same wheel that is used for older people, even though the outcome is not a custodial sentence.

At this stage, we will have a five-minute comfort stop.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—