Scottish Government

ANNEX A: REPORTS OF THE WORKSTREAMS OF THE YOUTH JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT GROUP

Workstream - Identify the success criteria and performance indicators for youth justice for 2006-08 based on the agreed objectives set out below.

Workstream lead - Eric Jackson, CoSLA spokesperson on Health and Social Work

We have ambition for all our children and we want then to have ambition for themselves and to be confident individuals, effective contributors, successful learners and responsible citizens. All Scotland's children and young people need to be nurtured, safe, active, healthy, engaged in learning, achieving, included, respected and responsible if we are to achieve our ambition for them.

Children behave in a certain way for a reason: their behaviour is based on influences, either current or historical. If we want to change the behaviour of a child and encourage them to behave in a positive manner, then we need to ensure that their current environment nurtures positive behaviour and that their background, which may have influenced negative behaviour, is recognised and considered in any decision taken to address their behaviour.

If we are to 'get it right for every child' then we have to have a system that responds to the needs of each child and which does everything it can to prevent a child entering into the 'youth justice system' in the first place; then, if they do enter the system we holistically address their behaviour. The aim of a successful youth justice system should be to stop a child from offending, continuing to offend or escalating the nature of their offence. In responding to a child's behaviour we need to ask is what we're doing going to help the child stop behaving in this why and understand why behaving in this way is wrong?

Any vision for a youth justice system for the future needs to work at a local and a national level. It needs to allow consistency of approach, but local flexibility; it needs to address each child's needs individually, but ensure there are minimum standards. It also needs to fit with our wider agenda for communities. We can no longer tackle issues at the wrong end, in isolation and then wonder why we don't get results or why the results we get don't make an impact.

There are a huge number of agenda to link with youth justice and upon which the youth justice system is dependent. While many of these agendas are outwith the remit of this group, we must use this opportunity to ensure they are being linked to and taking cognisance of the youth justice agenda as they are mutually dependent for success.

For example, offending behaviour is very often a symptom of something else, perhaps mental health or maybe an unstable home environment. We therefore need to link work on youth offending to strategies for compelling the health service to increase their child and adolescent mental health services; we need to look at work ongoing with parents to ensure they have the support they need.

In order to realise a successful youth justice system there are a number of areas that we all need to tackle collectively. Listed below are five outcomes which could form the basis of success criteria for the youth justice system. These will be further debated, added to and refined through the various working group and sub group meetings.

Overall a successful youth justice system would see the number of children and young people who offend or who are victims of offending behaviour reduced.

Beneath this however, sit a range of indicators that can be used to demonstrate the degree to which this high level outcome has been achieved.

Services see children and young people as children and young people

In order to make progress on youth justice we need to do two things. Firstly we need to realise that offending behaviour is very often a symptom of a problem affecting children and young people; and secondly, in order to address offending behaviour we need to tackle a range of issues. Educational attainment and achievement, health and well-being, child protection, and deprivation can all affect a child's behaviour. We need to link all these areas of work and consider the following:

• Children and young people who offend are also victims of crime. The Children's Commissioner reported that one of the top priorities for children and young people is safer streets.
• We need to look at how we address the mental health and well being of children and young people, this means getting the NHS involved and looking, amongst other things at child and adolescent mental health problems and the services available to deal with them.
• We need to look at drug and alcohol abuse by children and young people and the effect this has on their behaviour.
• We need to look at the life circumstances of children and young people who offend. For example, do they have drug or alcohol abusing parents, are they properly looked after and cared for. A substantial proportion of the most persistent young offenders will first have come to the attention of agencies due to concerns about their care and protection. Many will have a history of being looked after and accommodated prior to offending behaviour.
• If we are serious about treating children and young people and addressing all their needs, we need to look at how we retain them successfully and consistently within the youth system and not progress them to the adult system.

How de we measure success against this outcome?

• We need to consider outcomes for individual children. So far there has been too much emphasis on progress and what we need to do is to be able to point to success for a child, not for a system. We need to link in the joint inspections of children's services here.
• Levels of child and adolescent mental health services increased; an increased amount of CAMH services delivered in primary care settings; percentage of referrals to the CAMH service which are met.
• The number of children and young people who are victims of crime reduced
• We could look at the range of measures taken as a result of a child or young person appearing before a panel: is it always a social work or council led response, do other services get involved and if so, to what extent?
• Children's services plans should set out and agree a child focussed approach.

Other areas to consider:

We need to look at the balance of funding for children's services: it might be that the increased emphasis on extraordinary children and young people removes funding from the mainstream, rather than providing preventative programmes and initiatives and therefore leaves mainstream services less able to cope and more prone to referring children and young people on for specialist interventions.

Children and young people are positively engaged

Linked to the prevention agenda, children and young people need to be engaged in services and activity in order that they can be identified, targeted and helped. Very often we identify success as "97% of children and young people participate in X", but the real cause for our concern should be the 3% who don't.

• We need to concentrate on engaging children and young people in positive activities: attending school, attending clubs outside school and even looking as far back as take-up of free nursery places, looking both at what engages parents to involve their children and what children and young people are interested in.
• We need to look at the workforce that is able to do this and tie it in with a comprehensive youth work strategy which embraces detached youth work, demonstrates a commitment to the recruitment, training and support of dedicated youth workers and actively promotes the involvement of children and young people in the design and delivery of services.
• We need to ensure that any funding for preventative work and positive engagement is flexible, long term and sustainable.

How do we measure this?

• School attendance rates.
• Provision of out-of-school activity.
• Increased range, and take up, of formal and informal youth services.

The emphasis on all these measurements should be to look at the reasons behind their lack of engagement and try to deal with that.

An increase in the number of parents, carers and corporate parents who take responsibility

Often statutory organisations are blamed for youth crime: councils for not acting quickly enough, the police for not being around, and increasingly schools for not keeping control of pupils. The fact is that for 85% of their time children and young people are not in schools and are under the control of their parents or carers. We therefore need to balance the work we target at children and young people at risk:

• We need to ensure that any vision for reducing youth crime is also tied into work ongoing to improve attendance at school; work with parents on their responsibilities; work on child protection.
• We also need to know that children who are looked after or accommodated tend to be more prevalent in the youth offending statistics. We also know that children who are fostered do better generally, so we need to link our work on youth justice to the current Scottish Executive work on fostering.
• We know there are links between children in local authority care and youth crime. Councils therefore need to look at their role as a corporate parent and what they can do to improve outcomes for children in their direct care.

How do we measure this?

• Educational attainment of looked after children
• Offending rates of children and young people in local authority care and other types of care.
• Provision/ take-up of parenting classes/ support.
• Number of care placements (too often looked after or accommodated children and young people are moved about and have no continuity of care).

Communities understand and are involved in the youth justice system

Key to the success of a youth justice system and to the success of an individual coming out of the system and back to the community is the understanding of that community. There are a number of factors at play here: people need to feel safe and that their safety is taken seriously (this includes young people): and young people need to feel valued and respected; communities also need to appreciate that play is acceptable. There is a preventative agenda that can be created in communities with communities tolerating young people.

• Communities need to be educated on how the panels work but stopping short of knowledge of decisions and disposals for under 16s - we don't do it in the adult justice system, so why would it be ok for children and young people.
• Consistent and agreed press messages which don't blame other agencies, but which put out strong message on, for example: what data says; which emphasises the importance of what is happening and needs to happen and shows what can happen when the system works. A strong Scottish Executive, local government, voluntary sector, police message would get this across.
• As well as this we need to stop fuelling media led messages that communities are besieged and remember that the vast majority of children and young people do not offend and do not create disturbance.

How do we measure success?

• Through social attitude surveys e.g. opinion poll attitude to/ awareness of crime.
• Media messages are positive and consistent across agencies and within agencies.

A reduction in the number of children and young people who offend

A successful youth justice system would see a reduction in the number of children and young people who offend. But, in order to impact on offending levels we need to look beyond the children and young people who are known offenders. There is no one involved in youth justice who would not agree that prevention is best and where we should be concentrating our efforts. Councils, police and the voluntary sector can all cite examples of prevention and diversionary programmes that work, but the fact is they are patchy and piecemeal. Rarely do we see prevention programmes that address all children and young people (not just likely to offend), all ages, all genders, all year in all areas of a council or police authority. If we know this works and we know it is cost effective, we need to find a way of directing resources to prevention programmes.

In order to do this we need to:

• Look at what works.

We need to share good practice across councils and police authorities showing what works and the costs / savings involved.

• Look at the funding and where it is concentrated.

How do we remove the emphasis from process and concentrate it on prevention, diversion and effective disposals? Prevention measures will not work overnight, so how would be fund a transfer of resources, while we are waiting for preventative measures to impact.

• Address socio-economic issues.

We also need to address wider influences. It is wrong to say that because people come from deprived backgrounds they will offend, but a large proportion of young offenders do come from deprived backgrounds. Any youth justice vision should be embedded within a wider vision for communities and economic development. How do we ensure that the ties are made with other work specifically the ongoing work to address the NEET group (young people Not in Employment, Education or Training)?

The measures for this outcome and for outcome 6 are well developed through the work of PA Consulting and SCRA. However, additional suggestions for measurements would be welcome.

A reduction in the number of children and young people who re-offend

A successful youth justice system would see a reduction in the number of children and young people who re-offend. Most children who offend do not re-offend and for many a light touch approach, such as a warning or a letter to their parents/ carers has an impact. But, of course for some children and young people it does not. We need to ensure that the disposal option chosen has the desired effect. There are a number of points we have to address here:

• What can we do to ensure the disposal actually encourages a change in behaviour, providing the best outcomes for young people? How do we encourage children and young people not to re-offend through our response? An example of success being the use of police restorative warnings.
• Disposals need to address offending behaviour but also the many criminogenic needs of young people who become persistent offenders. Children and young people who re-offend continue to be children and young people first and therefore their needs continue to be paramount. There is a wealth of knowledge about What Works with persistent young offenders and we need to use this, develop it, continue to evaluate interventions and refrain from trying to find quick and cheaper solutions.
• We also need to ensure consistency of approach and that children and young people are for example only directed towards secure accommodation as a last resort. If secure accommodation or a young offenders institute is deemed necessary, we need to ensure that this response does not lead children and young people into a spiralling cycle of re-offending - how do we do this?

Workstream - Identify what needs to be put in place to prevent young people getting into the youth justice system

Workstream lead - Hugh Mackintosh, Chief Executive, Barnardo's

What needs to be put in place to prevent young people offending and coming into the Youth Justice System?

The major contributing factors - young people within the youth justice system

• Loss - serious rejection from own family, bereavement
• Family - poor parenting, neglect, abuse, domestic abuse, parental substance use, separation form family, significant health problems
• Education - low attainment, poor attendance, school exclusion
• Individual - low self esteem, low resilience, substance misuse, poor social skills, early evidence of aggressive behaviour
• Community - poverty, victimisation, availability of drugs

Positive factors

• Strong bonds with family
• Healthy standards set by parents, teachers and community leaders
• Opportunities for involvement in families, school and community
• Social and learning skills to enable participation
• Recognition and praise for positive behaviour - often a special skill counts for a great deal with a child

Some key factors

• Building alliances - doing it together via multi-disciplinary teams/ agencies
• Integrated assessments
• Build and develop on what we have - especially schools (integrated community schools)
• Engage - engage - engage
• Outcomes - outcomes - outcomes

* Incorporated as a method of work within a number of the 10 initiatives mentioned above.

Workstream - Ensure that partners, based on a robust audit of need, have effective approaches and interventions in place to prevent and address offending behaviour. Ensure staff have the tools they need; and address concerns, risk factors and offending behaviour appropriately and proportionately at the first opportunity to tackle offending behaviour and reduce its impact

Workstream leads - Margaret Cox, SCRA & Bill Whyte, Criminal Justice Social Work Development Centre for Scotland

This paper identifies the 6 key outcomes that are required in order to meet Objectives 2 and 4. It then identifies the critical tasks in relation to each of these key outcomes, outlining the current situation and where we want to be in relation to each of the critical tasks. The table sets out the key questions to be answered for each of the critical tasks, and the actions that are required. Finally the table identifies existing documents that provide examples of how these required actions may be achieved. The diagram in the appendix shows how the 6 key outcomes are inter-related and contribute to a process of continuous improvement.

Workstream - Ensure that people working with young people who offend, or who are at risk of offending, have the appropriate skills and knowledge to make positive changes

Workstream lead - Roy Jobson

Workstream - Improve information to victims and communities based on what people tell us they need

Workstream lead - Peter Wilson, President, ACPOS

The Issue

Within the programme to identify the next phase of issues which merit attention as part of the Executive's strategy to demonstrate continuous improvement in the area of Youth Justice, the provision of information has been identified as an important element.

This paper seeks to define the key stakeholder groups, the range of information available and sought, and proposes activity for the future. In so doing, an attempt has been made to take account of issues emerging in other workstreams, as well as the many strands of information already in existence.

The work still required is to assess the prioritisation necessary for any future work, and the establishment of the resources available or required to turn the proposals into actions. It is important that the proposals for the future build upon the work carried out under Objective 4 of the National Standard for Scotland's Youth Justice Services, which focussed on Information. That work included SIVYC (Support and Information for Victims of Youth Crime), and the new work to create a dedicated Victims Information Service based within SCRA. (Add reference).

The Analysis

Information provision in itself is of little value, if it is not relevant to or understandable by the user. The table provided at Appendix A is the result of a piece of analysis which has been consulted upon amongst members of the Youth Justice Improvement Group. It is intended that this document can be used as the basis of a managed activity. Dealt with in this way, the opportunity exists for a co-ordinated and consistent approach to be taken, delivering a reduction in ad hoc, parochial, and misunderstood messages. The result - better information, better use of resources.

The Table identifies a diverse group of users of information, and perhaps a smaller group of providers. While user needs vary, it is probably true that in the majority of instances, their actual need will be met by the drawing together of information from more than one source. In the past public authorities have usually done this individually, but in recent times partnership and co-operation have increasingly led to the use of partnership reports, magazines and portals. Inter-agency working has led to joint case handling.

The outcome of this work must be to build further on the developments to date.

Some Key Principles

To avoid the danger of information provision attempting to achieve detail in every segment, and for every circumstance, some key principles have been identified.

1. The information must aim to meet the needs of the user, not the satisfaction of the provider.

2. There ought to be a clarity of message around youth justice (see Leadership Workstream).

3. The messages must be objective and balanced. While it is understandable to want to accentuate the positive, the context must match reality.

4. Information should be based on common protocols, standards, and definitions. (Effective Approaches and Interventions Workstream)

5. The provision must be understood to address the specific needs of the youth justice agenda, as distinct from the adult justice system.

6. Consistent messages across agencies should be the objective wherever possible. (Effective Outcomes Workstream)

Some Challenges to Progress

From the perspective of the user of the information, from whichever category they come, the greatest benefit will come from easily accessible, practical, meaningful and accurate information. The challenge for Services and Providers is to reduce the differences in language, definitions, and data sets.

To improve coherence in working, and minimise bureaucracy in information exchange, organisations need to find effective means of data transfer. The national information sharing agenda (add reference) should provide the basis for this work.

Next Steps

The next stage is to distil the key elements from the attached analysis, assess against proposals already emerging in Getting it Right for Every Child, and agree activity. Once the plan of activity is agreed, suitable indicators can be developed.

Workstream - Ensure that high risk offenders' needs are properly assessed

Workstream lead - Stella Perrott

Introduction

Following the tragic killing of Karen Dewar Scottish Ministers and the subsequent SWIA/ HMIC report on the circumstances, the Scottish Executive responded, in respect of young offenders that:

The Executive is already taking action, through Getting it Right for Every Child, to ensure that the needs of all children, including those involved in offending, are addressed. As part of this, the Executive has developed proposals for a single, inter-agency, integrated assessment, plan and record. This framework includes the assessment and management of risks and the action agencies need to take to resolve matters of concern for the child or young person and to protect the public. We are developing a quality improvement framework, supported by inspection, and clear systems for governance and accountability, to ensure that action is being taken as required.

We have also established the Youth Justice Improvement Group to bring forward strategic advice on how best to take forward the youth justice agenda, and to provide national leadership to ensure effective delivery. One element of the work of that Group will be to prepare advice for Ministers on the transition from the Children's Hearing system into the adult system by young people involved in offending.

However, we recognise the particular challenges around dealing with adolescent sex offending. We will, therefore, recruit a team of professionals with relevant expertise who will work with service providers, and develop a package of advice and tools, to secure:

• measures to improve the identification, risk assessment, planning for and management of young sex offenders;
• the provision of specialist programmes to address offending, both within the community and in residential settings;
• ensuring those working with young sex offenders have sufficient expertise for their work;
• the arrangements needed to ensure the continued support and oversight as young people move into the adult system;
• the arrangements needed to ensure appropriate information is transferred from the children's to the adult system;
• identifying those young people most at risk of becoming serious offenders in later life;
• all supported by robust quality assurance systems.

An Expert Group was set up to draft a strategy to direct further work. This is that strategy.

The Expert Group decided early that it was appropriate to design a strategy for high risk violent as well as high risk sexual young offenders (people under 18 who present a high risk to others either through sexual or violent behaviour). Sexual attacks are violent attacks however surreptitiously they are conducted, high risk sex offenders often commit violence to cover over their crime and violent offenders not infrequently exploit their victims sexually. For young people in particular it seemed appropriate to consider both sexual and violent behaviour. This draft strategy therefore covers young people who present a high risk to others either through sexual or through violent behaviour. It is a strategy for better management of high risk young offenders.

Scotland has a unique system for dealing with young offenders which particularly recognises the developmental needs of children and young people. Since its inception this system has always been charged with dealing with both the 'deeds and the needs' of children and young people; throughout the system offending and problematic behaviour require to be directly and effectively addressed. Children and young people who face very serious criminal charges, such as murder or rape, may be dealt with through the Courts; the great majority, however, are dealt with through the Children's Hearings System. This includes children who commit serious offences or present other problematic and dangerous behaviour. Young people who are subject to a Supervision Requirement and are convicted in Court of serious offences may be referred to a Children's Hearing for advice as to how the Court should deal with the case. In certain circumstances, young people up to the age of 17_, who are not on supervision, may also be referred for advice. In either case the Court, may, if it is felt appropriate, decide to refer the case to the Children's Hearing for disposal.

In Scotland's unique system, although the ultimate authority of the Courts to deal with criminal behaviour is not relinquished, various mechanisms exist to manage the interface between the Children's Hearings System and the Criminal Justice System. The success of these however depends on the effectiveness of all the parties communicating and working together. Broadly the system as a whole has already the powers it needs to deal with young people up to 18 and to handle the various transition points. This strategy deals with 7 Key Action Areas and the action that can be taken over a planned period to deliver improvements in services and improvements in service co-ordination. Each action area is divided into specific goals and a plan set out for each goal.

It is assumed, as seemed reasonable to the Expert Group, that Police Forces and Local Authorities were already taking action in response to the findings of the report by SWIA and HMIC into the handling of the case of the murder of Karen Dewar by Colyn Evans. The strategy includes phased reporting arrangements on this. As in other areas the Expert Group recognises that, to make effective change, agencies will need to prepare, make changes and then monitor and adjust.

No single goal should be pursued on its own. Changes, significantly better handling of these cases, are required; yet balance and perspective remain important.

The public generally and local communities, families and individuals are entitled to reassurance that all that can reasonably be done to protect them from risk is done and this includes risks from young people whose behaviour is known to pose risks of serious harm to others. But not all risk can be eliminated. This must be recognised in planning and providing services and in considering changes as well as in political and media debate.

The Expert Group considered the issues raised by recent reports in the round and within the context of the developing plan for implementation of Getting It Right for Every Child and the Executive's wider plans in relation to Youth Justice. The Expert Group considered the issues under Seven Key Action Areas identified through the Ministerial statement at the time of publication of the report by SWIA and HMIC into the killing of Karen Dewar and this strategy report is organised under these areas. The Expert Group decided not to make any recommendations. Rather than taking the view that there was a single right way, or formula, for agency and inter-agency practice the Expert Group took the view that there were a number of important goals to be achieved both locally and nationally in order to bring about further real improvements in services. These Goals are set out under each of the Key Action Areas. The Expert Group considered that effective action to achieve these goals would involve preparation as well as action by local and national agencies and also monitoring over time, most of the goals imply a process of continuous improvement rather than the implementation of a single recommendation. This is set out in relation to each Action Area and summarized under the section Achieving the Goals. The Expert Group considered that the responsibility for taking the initiative should not always lie with the Scottish Executive nor for that matter with local agencies and so for each action area the responsibility for taking the initiative is indicated at the end.

Key Action Area 1: Measures to improve the identification, risk assessment, planning for and management of young people who pose a serious risk to others through violent or sexual offences.

The Expert Group agreed that there were three priority goals in this Action Area.

Goal 1:

High risk young offenders are identified better - i.e. those who need to be aware, to take action or to make decisions about the risks posed by a particular child or young person are better informed of those risks, the evidence of them and how they have been handled in the past.

In debating the issues involved here the Expert Group was concerned with two major questions. First what were the dangers of 'labelling' young people as dangerous? and second how early it was possible, or appropriate, to identify a child or young person as posing a serious risk to others? The Expert Group emphasised the importance of always distinguishing between different risks. In particular the distinction should be rigorously made between assessing the risk that a young person might re-offend (or that the inappropriate behaviour might recur) and assessment of the seriousness of the risk to others.

A young person who is assessed as unlikely to repeat inappropriate behaviour and whose behaviour whilst problematic does not pose a serious risk to others ( e.g. mild inappropriate public masturbation) would be assessed within the lower left quadrant (low risk). A young person whose behaviour posed a serious risk to others ( e.g. rape) and who was assessed as likely to repeat this behaviour given opportunity would be assessed as in the upper right quadrant (high risk). The majority of cases will fall in between and will be neither clear-cut nor simple to assess.

The distinction between these two dimensions of risk needs to be drawn for two main reasons. Firstly, to avoid inappropriately including young people who do not pose a risk of serious harm to others in arrangements for management of those who do pose serious risks to others. An example given to the Expert Group was of a teenager given a warning for a minor act of indecency being flagged through Police information systems as a potentially risky sex offender because of the inclusion of the term 'indecency' in the charge.

The second reason is also important. This is to assist those making the assessment in considering the vital issue of likelihood of escalation. In considering this question the professional undertaking the assessment has to consider the reasons why a young person may initially be considered likely or unlikely to repeat inappropriate or offending behaviours.

Distinguishing these two elements (the risk of re-offending itself and the risk of serious harm to others) is important for professionals undertaking assessments and overseeing risk management plans. It is also important for those, such as Children's Panel Members, Sheriffs and Judges who should expect the distinction to be made in reports to them so that they fully understand the decisions they are making. It is important in designing systems to manage services in involved in this area. And it is an important distinction, in the view of the Expert Group, to draw more generally in political and public debate.

Goal 2:

Social workers, psychologists and others conduct approved risk assessments as appropriate for children and young people. These should build on the single shared assessment and planning processes developing through 'Getting it Right for Every Child'.

The Expert Group recognised that there were wide variations in current practice in respect of risk assessment as regards both the approaches used and the quality of the work undertaken. Whilst recognising also that no single approach could be designed for use in all circumstances the Group did consider that more consistent use of validated assessment tools was an important goal.

The Expert Group considered that it will take some time for the single shared assessment process being developed through Getting It Right for Every Child to be established sufficiently robustly and sufficiently consistently across the country such as to be able to meet the pressing needs to improve consistency of risk assessment for this particular group. There needs to be a rapid development/implementation of appropriate risk assessment tools as part of the single assessment and plan (outlined in Getting it Right for Every Child) with the capacity of these to be 'stand alone' prior to the full roll out of the single assessment and plan.

That said the Expert Group was of the view that the changes over time that will be brought about by the implementation of the recommendations of Getting It Right for Every Child were centrally important to medium term progress in improving services and delivery. During the Expert Group's discussions it was clear that implementing the recommendations would require significant changes in agency procedures and practices and in professional and organisational cultures. The changes would require fundamental shifts in the nature of professional and inter-professional accountabilities and local systems for managing these accountabilities.

The Expert Group considered that these changes would require major initiatives in communication and training and would take some time to become embedded in local and national practices. The pace of development would also inevitably vary between localities. The Expert Group recognised the value of the aim of achieving a position in which the particular circumstances of each child determined the appropriateness of which professional should take the responsibilities of being the lead professional (as recommended by Getting It Right for Every Child). However, the Expert Group considered that until these changes were in place the local authority should be responsible for ensuring that in all cases of children and young people deemed to pose serious risks of harm to others a lead professional was identified (see also Goal 6).

Goal 3:

For all children and people assessed as posing a high risk an inter-agency risk management plan is agreed and the efficacy of the plan is reviewed.

The Group considered that this requirement should apply to all children and young people assessed as posing high risks to others whatever the status of court or children's hearings orders. Thus even in circumstances where for whatever reason there was no order in place a risk management plan should still be put in place and acted upon.

Achieving the Goals

Achieving these goals depends on action at a local level. There is no requirement for additional central guidance except in relation to the identification of a lead professional, which, given local authorities existing responsibilities, could essentially take the form of clarification of expectations arising from implementation of Getting It Right for Every Child.

In the meantime the Scottish Executive should work with the Risk Management Authority and experts in the field on the development of an approved framework to assess adolescent risk and violent offenders by end of 2006 as part of the single assessment and plan.

Local agencies should prepare for achieving these goals through their existing liaison structures by reviewing current local guidance and practice in respect of risk assessment and determining what further initiatives are required to be taken to achieve the goals. This should first be undertaken through the liaison structures for local authority, police and health agencies but also later include liaison arrangements with the Children's Hearings and the Justiciary.

A date (before the end of 2007) should be agreed by which new practices should become the norm across all agencies within the locality and appropriate arrangements for briefing and training staff should be planned for completion by that date.

Local arrangements should be made for monitoring the implementation of new practices and the results of this monitoring should be reported on an interagency basis within existing liaison arrangements.

The initiative to progress towards these goals should be taken by local police, health, social work and education agencies working together and in consultation with the voluntary and private sectors.

Key Action Area 2: The provision of specialist programmes to address the behaviours and needs of those young people who through violent or sexually aggressive behaviour present a serious risk to others, both within the community and in residential settings.

The Expert Group considered that it was a priority to establish better links between residential, custodial and community based specialist programmes as well as to develop their capacity, spread and availability. The Group was aware that there are few specialist programmes available and that an approach was required that did not overly inhibit the development of new programmes whilst simultaneously deploying greater evidenced based rigour in the construction and delivery of specialist programmes. The Expert Group also considered that those making decisions about disposals, including Children's Panel Members, Sheriffs and Judges, should have access to clearer information about the nature of specialist programmes that they were asked to consider.

The Expert Group recommends one priority Goal in this action area.

Goal 4:

All programmes designed to offer specialist responses addressing offending and problematic behaviour of children and young people assessed as posing a serious risk to others through violent or sexually aggressive behaviour should be subject to an approval process by December 2007.

The Expert Group recognised that not all children and young people who posed a high risk to others should or could at all times be subject to specialist programmes. Effective risk management can be achieved in many cases through other packages of surveillance and supervision that do not include specialist provision designed to address the specific behaviours.

Where a specialist programme is undertaken then all parties, including the young person and his or her family, should be able to be assured that the programme is soundly based on evidence-led theoretical models of what is likely to bring about effective behavioural changes. The model of the Accreditation Panel deployed in both the Scottish Prison Service and in Community Criminal Justice Services was considered by the Expert Group but the group concluded that, at least for the immediate future, a different approval process was required for this specialist provision. The Expert Group included senior staff from several regulatory bodies including HMIC, the Care Commission, SWIA and the RMA.

The new approval process should be issued by the Scottish Executive with the advice of the appropriate regulatory bodies and following consultation. It should be ready for deployment early in 2007 to enable the target of all specialist programmes being approved by December 2007 to be achieved. In inspecting and regulating residential provision the Care Commission should take account of the Approval Process requirements in the same manner as it takes account of the National Care Standards, HMIC, SWIA and HMIE should take account of the Approval Process requirements in their regular inspection programmes.

Achieving the Goal

Achieving this goal depends on action at national as well as local levels.

At local levels agencies currently providing specialist programmes should begin to review their approach and its consistency with evidence-led theoretical models in order to prepare for the consultation on the Approval Process as well as for approval in due course. This preparation will also strengthen the bases of these programmes. In both residential and community settings managers will have to consider whether or not their programme falls within the likely terms of a specialist programme addressing the behaviours of young people who pose a serious risk to others through violent or sexually aggressive behaviour. Where the issue is uncertain the Expert Group advises caution against precipitate conclusions.

At a national level the Scottish Executive should make proposals for an Approval Process with the advice of the regulatory bodies. This model should be relatively simple rather than any separate or new accreditation process, akin more to an appendix to the National Care Standards setting out in two or three pages what will be required of an Approved Programme.

There is no certain approach for programmes to take. So at national and at local levels there needs to be tolerance of uncertainty and of some mistakes in programmes for development to occur and for innovation to flourish.

The Executive should prepare to meet the deadline of early 2007 for issuing the new Approval Process and local agencies should prepare to meet the deadline of being approved by December 2007.

The change should be monitored by the regulatory bodies as part of their regular programmes.

The initiative to progress towards this goal should be taken by the Scottish Executive, consulting with local agencies and the voluntary and private sector.

Key Action Area 3: Ensuring those working with young sex offenders have sufficient expertise for their work.

Goal 6:

All children and young people assessed as posing a high risk to others because of violent or sexually aggressive behaviour to have a designated professional with specialist training.

The phrasing of this goal recognises the development of Getting it Right for Every Child and the role of the 'lead professional' in these future developments. The designated professional does not have to be a social worker or a local authority employee. But the responsibility for ensuring that there is a designated professional for those young people who are violent or sexually aggressive rests with the responsible local authority at least until Getting it Right for Every Child is implemented locally.

The Expert Group were conscious of the difficulties that local authorities would have in achieving this goal given the lack of sufficient numbers of staff with specialist skills and expertise but considered that a firm timetable should be set by the Scottish Executive following consultation.

Participation in the Criminal Justice Development Centre's initiative of Champions of Good Practice by all local authority children's services and Community Justice Authorities will assist. The Criminal Justice Development Centre's initiative had been drawn to the attention of the Expert Group who considered that its impact would only be patchy without central re-enforcement of the importance of learning across all Scotland from developments of good practice.

The Expert Group also considered that further consideration, probably initiated by the Criminal Justice Development Centre (in consultation with the Risk Management Authority and the Scottish Institute for Excellence in Social Work Education) should be given to the need for proposals for a specialist post-qualifying training course accredited by several professional bodies and operable across them.

The Group also considered that more was required and could be achieved through the continuous professional development programmes for police officers, social workers, for psychologists and for other professionals.

This goal presumes acceptance of the changes under Key Action Area 1: Improving Assessment. The Expert Group did not consider that there are large numbers of young people who pose a high risk of serious harm to others. From the experience of the Expert Group these will number less than 200; however, until more consistent assessment practices are in place no reliable figure can be quoted. Monitoring the work of the new Multi-Agency Assessment and Planning Agencies being established as part of the Scottish Executive's wider Community Justice reforms will play a key role in establishing clearer figures.

Complex cases of children or young people who pose a serious risk to others may arise in any part of Scotland and because of the demands they make on skills and resources authorities and agencies will have to resources work closely together and share expertise and resources to achieve this goal. Additionally a national resource should be created to provide expertise for those cases where there is insufficient local expertise.

The Expert Group considered that the arrangements for the Criminal Justice Authority boundary and liaison arrangements might be the best framework for negotiating the consistent availability of this expertise.

Achieving the Goal

Local agencies should first consider what changes will be required to their existing provisions and procedures in order to deliver this goal and discuss this within their established liaison arrangements with other agencies.

They should regularly monitor and review the match between needs and expertise.

The initiative for progressing the first part in relation to this goal should be taken by each Criminal Justice Authority.

Key action Area 4: The arrangements needed to ensure the continued support and oversight as young people move into adulthood.

The Expert Group considered that further practical steps could and should be taken to provide better management of the transition process in cases involving children or young people who were assessed as potentially posing a risk of serious harm to others. The Expert Group did considered that the Children's Hearings system had sufficient powers needed to exercise supervision effectively to 18 years old but a change of practice was needed. Additionally, a change of perception was required in order to achieve better managed transitions of high risk cases and this could be re-enforced through guidance and if appropriate regulation.

Goal 7:

No Children's Hearing supervision requirement of a child or young person assessed as posing a high risk to others should be terminated except on grounds that included an assessment that the risks had reduced such that no supervision was required and the child's needs no longer required special supervision.

The Expert Group was aware that a number of supervision requirements had reportedly been terminated on the grounds that the young person was not co-operating with the supervision arrangements. This was unsafe and appeared anomalous given that the system is specifically designed to include compulsory measures of supervision; an effective system of providing compulsory measures of supervision cannot always have to rely on co-operation even if co-operation is central to the general functioning and ethos of the system.

The Expert Group further noted that any comprehensive assessment of such a young person must routinely consider their risk of re-offending, the impact of such re-offending should it occur, and -in particular- the multi-agency arrangements which require to be in place to manage any risks identified. Emphasis should again be placed on distinguishing between the risks of re-offending per se and the assessment of the risk of serious harm to others.

The Expert Group also wished to emphasis that whatever the grounds of referral or the reasons for continued supervision the developmental and other needs of the child and young person should always remain a central part of considerations.

Goal 8:

The Children's Reporter and the Procurator Fiscal should review the arrangements for 'joint discussion' of high risk young offenders and put in place arrangements for information to be shared about their needs and the risks they pose.

Goal 9:

For all young people who are assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm to others the assessment and planning processes required for young people under the proposals in Getting it Right for Every Child should be consistent with those required of Multi-Agency Assessment and Planning ( MAPPA) and vice versa. Appropriate transition plans are made as young people move from children's to adult services or systems. Consideration should also be given as to whether he or she should be included as a Non-registered Sex Offender after the age of 18.

The Expert Group considered that the working arrangements between Children's Reporters and Procurator Fiscals were vital to successful management of transitions in individual cases and also more generally. Several examples of excellent liaison between Children's Reporters and Procurators Fiscal were brought to the Expert Group's attention.

Achieving the Goals

These goals depend on action at local levels by several agencies and individual professionals but these will only be sporadic if there is not co-ordinated action by the relevant national bodies.

Key Action Area 5: The arrangements needed to ensure appropriate information is transferred from the children's to the adult system.

Goal 11:

Procedures are established in all Local Authorities to ensure that Criminal Justice staff obtain the earlier children's services case records of any person being assessed or under supervision or treatment as an adult.

The Expert Group do not have a criminal conviction. They considered that specific steps needed to be taken to ensure that effective new arrangements were put in place to ensure that vital information about children and young people who posed a risk of serious harm to others continued to be available appropriately across new and diverse organisational arrangements, including for instance to Through-care Teams.

The Expert Group noted that in several areas there were not simple and reliable processes for ensuring efficient and effective availability to Community Criminal Justice of vital information held by staff in Children's Services. This appeared to be, in part, because some recording and information systems did not always effectively support this interchange. The Group was concerned that these issues might be exacerbated by changes in local service arrangements unless the issue was appropriately identified and specifically addressed at a local level.

The Expert Group noted that these issues would be addressed, along with many others, through the extensive reform programme for information systems and processes in respect of children, which are being developed under Getting It Right for Every Child. However, this extensive programme of reforms will take time to be fully developed and effectively embedded. Some local action is therefore required to ensure that current systems and processes do deliver effective transfer of key information across organisational boundaries. Current systems vary significantly in construction, process and practice and detailed central prescription is therefore unrealistic.

Achieving the Goal

In the medium term this issue should be dealt with through the processes being developed under Getting It Right for Every Child and it is therefore important that it is considered in the pilot phases of these developments that are being designed and tested now and over the coming months.

More immediately, and in the light of the variety of new organisational arrangements being put in place, local agencies need to take action to ensure that their existing local procedures work effectively across present as well as new boundaries. They should not for instance take it for granted that the arrangements in place in existing or previous arrangements, even where these did not split service responsibilities, necessarily worked as effectively as they might.

Whilst the initiative for ensuring that this goal is addressed in the implementation of Getting It Right for Every Child lies with the Scottish Executive, the initiative in respect of this goal more immediately should lie with the Local Authorities and their liaison arrangements with local children's and health services.

Key Action Area 6: Identifying earlier those children and young people most at risk of developing behaviours that posed risks of serious ham to others.

Goal 12:

Agencies collectively and regularly review the circumstance and plans for those children and young people identified as high risk. Police, education, social and health service professionals involved contribute information and advice. Where young children are recognised as having significant needs that are likely to impact on their future wellbeing or that of others, agencies work together to reduce the likely future impact and ensure that such children are supported through childhood until the risks to their own or others safety and well being can be managed.

The Expert Group considered that for a small number of children and young people a co-ordinated approach to gathering and analysing information about a child or young persons' behaviour and circumstances would enable earlier action to be taken to prevent the escalation of their behaviours and, or, to better manage risks and needs as they developed. The Expert Group emphasised that this was a complex area; that there was a risk of unwarranted or unnecessary intrusion into children's lives and that there were no wholly reliable and validated approaches to assessment. Never the less the Expert Group considered that with careful professional attention and good inter-agency co-ordination progress could be made in this field. The group commended the Child Protection Care conference model as one most effective.

The Group also thought greater attention should be given to assessing children's social and emotional development as part of continued assessments of educational and physical development. And that through these means agencies might ensure that children who are presented with the most significant problems had their needs addressed. Earlier or lower-tier intervention is not the same as doing less, quite the reverse.

The Expert Group considered that the child protection case conferences provided a good model for inter-agency planning and decision-making in individual cases. No one agency had all the information or skills to determine how best to proceed in highly complex, and uncertain, cases including those of children who posed high risks to others.

Achieving the Goal

This matter is and needs to be taken forward within the context of Getting It Right for Every Child and it would not be appropriate to establish any new parallel system .

Given the importance of the issues involved both for the children and young people themselves and for their families and others effected the Expert Group considered that the piloting of systems being developed under Getting It Right for Every Child gave some particular attention to this aspect.

The discussions in the Expert Group emphasised the considerable communication tasks involved in preparing for the developments and new processes involved in implementing Getting It right for Every Child. A more fully developed communication strategy may be required.

The initiative to achieving this goal should be taken by the Scottish Executive under Getting It Right for Every Child.

Key Action Area 7: Supporting services through robust quality assurance systems.

Goal 13:

The action taken by each Police Force and by each local authority in response to the SWIA/ HMIC Report on the murder of Karen Dewar should be included in the inspection programmes of SWIA, HMIC and HMIE from June 2006 to June 2009.

The Expert Group considered that each force and each local authority should have already begun to take action in relation to the findings of the SWIA/ HMIC report which clearly had relevance to all agencies.

Goal 14:

The Care Commission, HMIC, HMIP, SWIA and HMIE to take into account any guidance from an approval mechanism to be established by the Scottish Executive in their procedures for registration and inspection.

The Expert Group considered that all the Inspectorates would need to adapt their procedures to ensure new guidance was implemented. For most Inspectorates this should be a simple adjustment to their regular procedures rather than any new extensive developments.

The Care Commission was not, at least at present, equipped to independently evaluate the requirements for specialist provision in this field in residential care services. However, the Care Commission does regulate all care services (though not community services) and does so taking into account clear standards and other matters. It can also invoke enforcement powers to require bodies providing care services meet the standards required and where necessary to ensure that no provision that does not meet satisfactory standards is able to offer services. Nonetheless the Commission is best placed to monitor and enforce the Assessment Panel's requirements. The Care Commission is statutorily required to 'take into account' the National Care Standards which are set by Ministers. The simplest way forward might therefore be to include any guidance in revised standards when appropriate.

Several agencies have experience of providing specialist programmes and the Expert Group was assisted by including some professionals with extensive direct experience in this field in both service design and in delivery. Those successfully providing specialist programmes have extensive experience and expertise that should be drawn on in the preparation of guidance on approval procedures.

Achieving the Goal

Goal 13 should be achieved through action by the individual Inspectorates who should consider how to appropriately coordinate their plans and findings through existing liaison arrangements. The initiative lies with each Inspectorate.

Goal 14 requires more detailed consideration and consultation with providers as well as with regulators. The initiative towards achieving this goal should be taken by the Scottish Executive.

Conclusion

The Expert Group concluded that some improvements to the assessment and management of cases of children and young people who posed serious risks to others could be made through national and local agencies pursuing over time clear goals related to service improvements in this field. This would not lead to the elimination of risk but would reduce risk, improve community safety and also improve appropriate services for children and young people.

The Expert Group also concluded that major changes would be brought about through full implementation of the recommendations of Getting It Right for Every Child but recognised that this was a complex process with a significant lead time to run before it was fully rolled out and embedded.

The Expert Group has proposed a set of goals, some of which are for immediate action, and has identified which agencies should take initiatives in respect of the goals.

Workstream - Consolidate and build on improvements already achieved in youth justice strategic direction

Workstream lead - George Black, Chief Executive, Glasgow City Council

What makes effective strategic management?

The Scottish Executive has recognised the importance of effective strategic management, performance reporting and communications and has invested in supporting these developments through various mechanisms. These include:

• Audit Scotland reports on Local Authority Youth Justice Services (2002/03).
• The CJSWDC Evaluation Project (from 2004).
• The secondment of a Youth Justice Communications Co-ordinator to the Scottish Executive (from 2004).
• PA Consulting business process analysis (2004).
• New guidance on Integrated Children's Service's Plans (2005).

Many strategic management models exist and these share similar features. Some have been designed specifically for Youth Justice ( e.g.DECIDER framework and the Effective Approaches/ Interventions Model models). Xore features are:

• Importance of shared values and objectives.
• High level leadership with decision making (strategic, operational and financial).
• Commitment to use of good quality management information.
• Long term planning commitment based on evidence not political decisions.

Where are we currently?

The group in its meeting identified a number of strengths and weaknesses in the approach to Youth Justice in Glasgow. As the group is drawn exclusively from the City any observations and recommendations made need to be tested to ensure that they are applicable elsewhere. It may be useful to invite an independent member to the group to provide a wider National perspective.

In addition to the strategic matters that are the focus of the discussion below, there was some consensus that resources required to be targeted at specific issues e.g. parenting, prevention. However there was also an agreement that these should be "best practice" responses based on sound evidence and clear shared objectives.

Group members commenting on the core features of good strategic management, identified above, noted that:

Values

• Shared values and objectives do exist. There is a clear message that offending behaviour must be challenged and changed.
• Agencies work together for positive ends e.g. Development and Regeneration Services and CLS work to address anti-social behaviour.
• However the very use of different terms like Youth Justice and Anti Social Behaviour in relation to the same groups suggests a lack of coherence around issues to do with young people and offending. The media also has a role in this. While recent headlines have talked of "neds" other public statements ( e.g. launching the Children's Services Plan) stress the notion of corporate and community responsibility towards all children and young people. There is an ambivalence across all agencies that must be at least acknowledged.

Leadership

• The group identified a "…disjointed approach to youth justice". Its relationship to Children's Services Planning was highlighted but the need for further links to substance misuse and other areas was also identified.
• The parallel structures between ASB and Youth Justice have been identified before (an illustration of the overlap is attached as diagram 3) and this may lead to competition rather than collaboration.
• Current political thinking at local and national levels seems to prioritise ASB initiatives which risk contradicting the requirement for better integrated Children's Services and the holistic approach to child welfare embodied within "Getting it right for every child".
• It was noted that within the Scottish Executive this distinction is highlighted by the placement of Youth Justice (Education) and ASB (Justice) in different Departments albeit under the responsibility of the same Minister (Justice).
• Paradoxically both these pressures emanate from Central Government who require separate ASB and Youth Justice structures and encourage both a "get tough" and welfarist approach. These apparent tensions are not easy to manage at any level. Each local authority needs to work to develop a common set of values that can be shared by all partners. This relates back to the first point around development of shared values.
• Acknowledgement is needed so that the varying boundaries of agencies coupled with the mobility of the vulnerable populations pose real practical barriers to effective coordinated action.
• Evidence from elsewhere suggests the central importance of senior managers to "champion" the agenda. The importance of corporate rather than departmental commitments cannot be understated. ¹

Monitoring and Evaluation

• The group suggested that more discussion was needed around the current high level performance indicators, in particular the "persistent offender" count. The feeling was that many issues impact on this not least differential policing practices.
• Like eradicating poverty, reducing levels of offending by young people is resource intensive and long-term proposition. Internationally 2-year reconviction rates are used. More realistically it should be linked to long-term targets to reduce poverty.
• There was an acknowledged need to get better intelligence about effectiveness and how to locally match resources to need. This work needs to be prioritised and properly "joined-up" to allow best practice to develop.

Long termism

• The need for realistic longer term planning is agreed. The group recognise the both preventing offending and stopping re-offending are complex areas that will not be done by a single agency or in a short term. Without proper planning short term initiatives may not be sustainable ( e.g. what are the resources for ASB task force areas longer term?) Initiatives may also conflict with each other.
• There is also a need for clear milestones for achievement of goals in the short or medium term that are consistent with long term goals.
• Agencies need a framework that can support long term action, with clear milestones, but also support flexibility and responsivity in dealing with changing circumstances, needs and demands.
• Long term commitment to planning and service development can only be effective if underpinned by funding arrangements that are adequate to the scale of the task.

Resources

• The 2002 Audit Scotland Report "Dealing with offending by young people" found that "Less than 40% of Youth Justice spend is directed at tackling offending behaviour".
• The use of residential care and the costs of processing young people through child and (especially) adult systems, continues to divert resources from potentially more effective community based disposals. It is well known that children leaving residential care have poorer outcomes than those in the community and yet the expansion of the secure estate and development if ISMS show contradictory policy initiatives.
• Youth Justice National Standards state that strategy groups need "To identify, allocate and pool, as necessary, the resources available from each of the strategy group's partner agencies to ensure effective delivery of youth justice services and to provide financial monitoring information to the Executive, on request".
• There are question marks over how far this has happened and to what extent mainstream services (Education and Health) have been integrated into the Youth Justice agenda. Again senior leads with the authority to make decisions about budget commitments are essential.
• The prevention agenda must recognise the context of child poverty, substance misuse and other wider socio-economic factors. This is not the responsibility of one agency but all working together.
• Recommendations from both Audit Scotland and "It's a Criminal Waste" have highlighted funding issues, partnership working, the need for robust community disposals and the transitional issues between Children's and Adult Justice systems. A number of their proposals remain relevant but not implemented. A review of progress against these would be welcome.

Where do we want to be?

• Youth Justice must become invisible "brand£ that is recognisable in ethos and operation to politicians, the public, young people and wider stakeholders. This requires the development of clear shared values and objectives.
• Where there are seemingly competing agendas between welfare and control of behaviour, it is even more important that effective strategic leadership is in place.
• There needs to be agreed definitions of Youth Justice and Antisocial Behaviour that help to identify where planning responsibilities should lie. This links both to developing shared values about how children and young people are viewed, understood and supported, and the requirement for leadership at a decision making level. Providing education, training, employment, leisure and life opportunities is the preferred way of keeping young people away form offending.
• Support for planning in the short/ medium and long term with targets based on outcome measures at each stage. These targets should be consistent and cumulative and there should be robust evidence generated for each target set. Workable plans for the short/ medium term would be 2 years with further milestones at 4 years.
• Strategic leadership requires to put in place approaches that are effective in changing offending. This requires planning based on evidence of positive outcomes demonstrated through ongoing monitoring and evaluation. This also accepts that new interventions need time to bed in and need longer term evaluation. Any new approaches should be based on the best available international evidence with a recognition of the organisational and service contexts required to best promote success.
• Resources and budget management arrangements need to be in place to achieve the required aims and objectives. Funding must be transparent and accountable and contribute to initiatives which are in turn carefully monitored to ensure Value for Money.

What do we need to get there?

• Agreement on where leadership for Youth Justice should lie at both local and national levels.
• A clear definition of the scope of the task and organisations with a role to play.
• Strong Children's Service Planning structures with sufficient authority to make decisions and pool budgets and integrate services.
• A commissioning strategy that specifies requirements for delivery and evaluation of service and annual review of VFM.
• Strategic leadership should include integrated children's services, antisocial behaviour and criminal justice. It should operate under the umbrella of community planning.
• Clear roles and responsibilities agreed between ASB, Community Safety, Youth Justice and wider Children's Services with parallel structures to relate directly at a national level.

The interface between Children's Services, Youth Justice, Anti Social Behaviour and Community Safety

Workstream - To ensure effective integration between youth and adult justice systems

Workstream lead- Colin Mackenzie, President, ADSW

Development of youth justice objective 8 for 2006/07 to build on National Standards for Scotland's Youth Justice Services: 'To ensure that the right support, programmes and monitoring and information exchange are in place for those young people who offend and are in both the children's and the adult systems or are transferring between them'.

Group members

Lead: Colin Mackenzie, ADSW

Elizabeth Carmichael Scottish Executive Justice Department
Fiona Eadie COPFS
Doris Aitken East Renfrewshire Council (Criminal Justice)
Scott Pattison COPFS
Dave Sutherland ACPOS
Derek Aitken Dundee City Council (Youth Justice)
Donna Bell Scottish Executive
Neill Mitchell SCRA
Marie McElhill Aberdeenshire Council (Strategic Development)

Report to the Youth Justice Improvement Group

8 March 2006

Areas of work highlighted by the group

Information Sharing and Exchange:

• Shared Objectives and Understanding Across Youth and Adult Systems.
• Transition between the children's and adult systems - when is it appropriate to move from one system to the other or to take action on an agreed basis to prevent young people moving between systems.
• Youth Courts and Programmes of Intervention.

In establishing where we want to be, we have set out the aim of information exchange, which is to ensure that appropriate information is available to decision makers and service providers so that:

• a comprehensive assessment can be made of the circumstances of young people who offend;
• an appropriate and proportionate response is put in place taking account of the young persons needs and the most effective way to tackling their offending behaviour;
• effective interventions, programmes and monitoring are in place;
• evaluation of interventions is routine.

Note 1 - Information Sharing Protocols

The group reviewed various Information Sharing Protocols and agreed that the number available could be confusing for practitioners/agencies and they may not be specific enough for their local needs re offending. It was proposed that there was a need for a jointly agreed local Information Sharing Protocol for agencies working within the realms of youth justice, incorporating process for the 16+ age group. This could involve all partners i.e. service providers, Anti-Social Behaviour services and teams. Note was taken that there was no need to re-invent the wheel and that local I.S.P's could be informed by using one example of good practice i.e.Concordat: Sharing information on sex offenders - Information Steering Group (S.E. 2005).

A local Information Sharing Protocol could include flowcharts regarding local process i.e.

Young Person over 16 cited Lead Professional sourcedCollation of information, through case-conference etc Plan devised, including timescales

Policy and Procedures

Agencies have written policies and procedures in place, supported by robust systems and structures to collect, store and ensure the effective handling and transfer of information with timed targets for the speed of transfer.

• Policies and guidance set out the principles and reasons for information sharing
• The statutory authority and obligations for sharing information on young offenders are included in the written procedures
• A senior member of staff provides leadership and takes responsibility for high level decisions on the release of information, including decisions not to share which should be subject to an audit
• There are clear instructions, regularly updated, on how the arrangements operate within the organisation
• Timed targets are set for the transfer of information and performance is monitored on a regular basis
• There is a procedure for ensuring that accurate records are maintained and processes are proofed for security integrity
• Rules for recording, managing and deleting information are in place.

Processes for Managing the Partnerships and Flow of Information

Agencies and staff are clear about the information to be transferred and received and the agencies with whom it can be shared.

• Local protocols are agreed with partner agencies and reviewed at regular intervals
• Rules are in place to establish which agency owns that data at each stage in the process
• A checklist is maintained of the information to be received at each stage, to whom and timescales for doing so
• The rules are set out for disclosing information to other public bodies
• Systems are in place to ensure that the process of transferring information to partners is secure.

Management of People

Practitioners are aware, knowledgeable and skilled in the information sharing principles and process, recognising their own needs and those of their partners.

• Staff roles and responsibilities are clearly set out in job descriptions
• Suitable training and supporting written material including checklists are provided for staff
• Staff participates in joint training with other agencies to develop shared understanding and effective communication.

Performance Monitoring

• Agencies have performance monitoring and reporting mechanisms in place, including an internal quality assurance process.

Note 2 - Definition of entry to CJS required - Transitional Period

The group discussed at which point it would be crucial to transfer a case from youth to adult system. Reference was made to the use of an 'end of supervision assessment'. If a Children and Families Social Worker assessed, through use of ASSET/ YLSR that a young person would be 'at risk' of further offending in the future, but was also recommending termination of a Supervision Requirement, then an 'end of Supervision Assessment ' should be collated jointly with Criminal Justice Social Work, including a plan for implementation of intervention/s.

The publication 'The Evaluation of the Children's Hearings in Scotland' - Children in Focus (1999 S.E) found that only 2 out of 34 cases were terminated for 'positive reasons'. Other cases were terminated for 'negative' reasons, 'lack of co-operation', 'not accepting advice' or 'missing appointments'.

There has also been anecdotal evidence from Fast-Track pilots where young people continue to be uncooperative and continue to offend once there is termination of their Supervision Requirement, long before there was ever any intervention put in place by the Criminal Justice System. These concerns led to SCRA and representatives of panel chairs and local authorities in the Fast Track authorities agreeing the statement (referred to earlier) regarding the continuing responsibility of the CHS towards young people who continue to offend.

There are many good practice examples in Youth Justice, with LA's setting up specialist social work teams to work with young people at the transition between two systems. Lessons should be learned from various initiatives nationally i.e. Lanarkshire have recently been subject to a SWIA inspection and it has been highlighted that they have good practice whilst working with 14-18 year olds and the transition from youth to adult systems.

East Renfrew shire promotes joint working between the Young People's teams and Criminal Justice Services in situations where it no longer becomes credible or viable to maintain a young person within the CHS ( e.g. two or more remits back to the CHS for advice/disposal). In such cases, the Young People's Team in consultation with the CJ team prepares the SER. The action plan is suitably resourced and access to any necessary funding agreed prior to submission to the Court. If the Court appearance results in a CJ community based disposal a short period of joint work is maintained with responsibility for the supervision of the CJ Order transferred to the CJ team, while the Youth Justice Team remain involved in completing any work undertakes in relation to welfare needs until any existing Supervision Order has been terminated. This model aims to ensure the availability of advice and support to the young person and their family in the early stage of transition to the CJ system assists the young person's understanding of the more rigorous requirements of a CJ disposal and consequently encourages greater levels of compliance.

In Dundee a specific post has been established to assist young people through the transitional period.

The group agreed that all LA's/partnerships are different in make-up and geographical nature and therefore adopting a 'one fit for all' process/solution would not be effective, however sharing good practice examples would be beneficial to progress. The Scottish Executive should find ways to promote and support good practice across all 32 Local Authorities. This could be based on information about current services and progress in developing new ones.

Note 3 - Youth Courts & Summary Justice Reforms

The group felt that consideration should be given to the findings of the piloted Youth Courts. There will be general lessons to be learned regarding the speeding up of current processes, multi-agency working, the continued involvement of the sheriff and access to a range of support and interventions.

The Summary Justice Reform and proposed developments are very relevant in this context and should be incorporated into future strategic and service delivery considerations.

The overall objective is to use alternatives to prosecution for low tariff offences and thereby enable the Courts to focus quickly and effectively on more serious offenders.

Note 4 - Funding Considerations

• New Scottish Executive resources within Youth Justice can be tied to specific projects - therefore no flexibility when developing innovative, individual tailored packages of support for assessed need.
• Core services - increasing demands, not matched by increased resources.

Note 5 - Training Considerations

• There is a need for more and varied multi-agency training. The Scottish Executive supported multi-agency training in February highlighted a pertinent message that should be reinforced:- 'Need for an acceptance that all partners have a shared responsibility to continue to address offending behaviour'.
• There is a need for a forum to share good practice/lessons learned across 32 Local Authorities and their partners.
• Procurator Fiscal - Procurator Fiscals would both benefit from and appreciate having a full discussion regarding diversionary alternatives available to them locally in respect of young offenders- training would therefore be required, or proposed production of local, regularly updated directory of services/supports and effectiveness of these supports.
• Reporter and Procurator Fiscal - Continuation of representation on multi-agency training. Further training on issues of criminogenic need and 'what works' with young people who offend.

Workstream - The Health Perspective

Workstream lead - Sandy Watson, Board Member, Tayside NHS

The Youth Justice Improvement Group is focussing on those children and young people who offend and who are in (or at risk of coming into) the children's hearings system, linking as appropriate with the 21 ^st Century Social Work Review and Getting it Right for Every Child.

A successful youth justice system would see:

• A reduction in the number of children and young people who offend.
• A reduction in the number of children and young people who re-offend

In order to impact on offending levels, we need to look beyond the children and young people who are known offenders. There is no-one involved in youth justice who would not agree that prevention is best.

"Everyone working with and caring for children and young people can contribute to their mental health and wellbeing, and many already do so. Local Authorities for example have the power to promote community wellbeing and can provide many opportunities through the Community Planning processes to create conditions which support good mental health for our children and young people. Some professionals have a specific "mental health" role, whilst others, such as teachers, make a valuable contribution implicitly, as part of another role."

"The Mental Health of Children and Young People - A Framework for Promotion, Prevention and Care" (Scottish Executive)

From an NHS perspective, we need to look, amongst other things, at child and adolescent mental health problems and the services available to deal with them. Against a backcloth of the Scottish Executive's document "The Mental Health of Children and Young People - A Framework for Promotion, Prevention and Care" and the subsequent document, "Getting the Right Workforce - Getting the Workforce Right: A Strategic Review of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Workforce", the following points are regarded as being significant:

1. There is a basic issue about having the right mix of people, including clinical psychologists and paediatricians, and there is a particular need for more clinical psychologists.

2. There is a need to invest resources towards a fully comprehensive service for children and young people with mental health problems.

3. As at March 2005, there were 158 children and young people on the waiting list for clinical psychology, and over 60% waiting in excess of 26 weeks for first consultation.

4. At least 40% of young offenders have been found to have a diagnosable mental health disorder.

5. Looked after children are 5 times more likely than their peers to have a mental health disorder.

6. The treatment of children's and young people's mental health problems requires a different approach from treatment of adults with similar problems.

From discussion with staff in NHS Tayside, the following points emerged:

• NHS aims to have forensic mental health services for adults. There are no specific forensic mental health services for young offenders in Scotland, apart from Glasgow where there is a developing forensic service;
• Evidence shows that good screening is needed to pick out persistent high tariff offenders, and high resource input is required;
• Partnership is required with Youth Justice Teams and with families/ whole systems;
• High tariff young offenders can have even greater problems than adults - general levels of inadequacy, lack of social support, impulsivity, poor problem solving, high levels of anxiety, lack of "significant others" in their lives, victimisation and bullying, drugs and alcohol;
• Targeting low tariff offenders does not make much difference;
• We have to find ways of assisting looked after children to access health/ mental health/ physical health/ sexual health services;
• One of the barriers is getting Primary Care/ GPs to take seriously young people's mental health concerns. Some of these will be moderate and transient, but some in the mid-teens upwards will be significantly serious;
• It is not specific professional groups who are missing;
• What is required is people who can be trained to do the right programmes, who can tolerate the levels of anxiety;
• It is about finding the right people - psychologists, nurses, psychiatrists, Youth Justice workers, youth workers - it is about Youth Justice and Health working together; about a foundation or training in CAMHS - basic mental health training and partnership working;
• There are resource issues about addressing the work in the Framework by 2010. These issues relate to psychiatry; psychology, allied health professionals ( e.g. dieticians), social work - outreach; nursing - community psychiatric nurses;
• There is at present a gap in service provision and in coherent service provision, and there are post code inequities.

Youth Justice System individuals who enter the Youth Criminal Justice System have a number of significant needs. They often come from a background of social and economic deprivation, with high rates of physical, emotional and sexual abuse that contributes to emotional instability and poor mental health. They often have poor educational achievement, poor social problem skills, impulsivity and a history of alcohol and drug misuse. Indeed, it is these latter characteristics that are often associated with offending behaviour. Furthermore, despite their youth, many will already be parents with poorly developed parenting skills and a limited or restricted social support network.

Given the range and complexity of such problems it is somewhat surprising that there is a lack of specifically targeted and focussed health and social care services for such a vulnerable and disadvantaged group. Services that do exist are likely to have been developed on an ad hoc basis, or in relation to local need. There is a lack of a coordinated approach to strategic service planning and development in this area.

Proposals:

1. Scoping Exercise

Before progressing towards a more coherent strategic perspective, it would seem appropriate to undertake a local scoping exercise as follows:

1. Map the range of services currently available including

eligibility criteria, target group and operational policies.

2. In relation to needs of the client population, compare current service

provision with gaps in service.

3. Prioritise gaps in service that require to be rectified on the basis of

agreed prioritisation criteria.

4. Outline demonstrable target improvement in health and social care that

are likely to be achieved.

5. Outline current and projected health and social care costs of failure to

rectify service gaps and have a strategic health and social care programme.

Such a detailed scoping exercise, using the Framework and Workforce documents as the base, could result in a pragmatic action plan which identifies the gaps in provision and how these must be addressed.

2. Monitoring

Consideration should be given to Quality Improvement Scotland and/or Audit Scotland having a role in monitoring the extent to which the action plan is being implemented.

3. Young Scot

The Justice, Health and Education Departments all already work in partnership with Young Scot and have used its national youth portal to engage with Scotland's young people.

Experience with Young Scot would indicate that, perhaps along with Youthlink and the Scottish Youth Parliament (all now based together under the one roof at Haymarket), they could orchestrate the effective involvement of young people themselves in an issue which is of fundamental importance to a large number of their peers.

March 2006