Daphne rpoject_2002-088

THE WEST SUSSEX YOUTH OFFENDING TEAM AND THE

WEST SUSSEX COMMUNITY SAFETY DOMESTIC

VIOLENCE TEAM

European Partnership Project

Young People, Domestic Violence and Offending

BACKGROUND

1.ASSESSMENT

In 1994, the Youth Justice Team in West Sussex was introduced to a Risk and Needs Assessment format developed in Canada and the U.S.A. – the Level of Supervision Inventory. This system allowed operational staff to target their interventions according to assessed need and to identify particular groupings of productive risk factors and individual behaviour which had been validated through research as high indicative of a propensity for criminal or anti-social behaviour.

In 1999 – the ASSET was introduced. This is now used as a consistent initial and reviewable assessment of criminogenic need for all children and young people (10-18 years) entering the criminal justice system. Consistent with previous findings, the major areas of “high risk” relate to: -

Thinking and behaviour

Lifestyle

Family and personal relationships

Education

Substance abuse

Attitudes etc

Alongside other Y.O.T. initiatives, including Mentoring, Reparation and Parenting Support programmes, an application was made to the Youth Justice Board (the body that oversees the implementation of the Youth Justice System) for a grant to support a piece of research in the arena of Domestic Violence.

In partnership with colleagues from the Community Safety Team and the Domestic Violence Team, an initial piece of work was undertaken in 2001. The report has been presented to the Y.O.T. Management Group.

2. PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

The European DAPHNE program has as its main theme ‘Preventive Measures to Fight against Violence on Children, Teenagers and Women.

The Social Services section in Seine-Saint-Denis department of Paris has commenced research around the impact of ‘recurrent violence situations when ceasing any protection measures’. They were made aware of the piece of work being undertaken in West Sussex and as a result two representatives (Terry Bishop and Natasha Rennolds) of the project attended a multi-national seminar in Saint Denis on the 15th April. (Other interested parties include representatives from Spain, Italy, Germany, Belgium and Romania (being non-EEC as a guest of France).

The opportunities that will follow from the DAPHNE allocation will allow the West Sussex project to develop further than the somewhat limited boundaries set by the available resources.

3. RESEARCH PROJECT

The issues that will be taken forward and enlarged through this joint enterprise are as follows: -

  • To provide awareness raising training for all Y.O.T. staff to assist in the identification and assessment of domestic violence issues (links to other DAPHNE bid currently in planning phase). This will take place during the summer of 2002.
  • To undertake a second tranche of research based on the ASSET returns with Y.O.T. clients. The cohort of offenders will be the same as the cohort selected through the recidivism returns for the YJB – October to December 2002. This will allow the research data to be enhanced through the use of the work already being undertaken as apart of the YJB criteria.
  • Widen information base through contact with other Youth Justice Services both in the UK and the partner countries.
  • Explore any “intervention” programmes, which have been positively evaluated.
  • Research for other research initiatives.
  • Develop links with other child protection agendas and initiatives – locally through the Area Child Protection Committee in West Sussex (A.C.P.C.).
  • The areas of the research project in West Sussex will address the following :-

The numbers of young people entering the criminal justice system (CJS) reporting an experience of domestic violence (witnessed/ victim/ perpetrator)

The nature, type and frequency of the offence(s) leading to their entering the CJS and the links, if any, to their experience of domestic violence.

The number of young people entering the CJS who are also Looked After Children and the reasons for that status, together with an assessment of the ‘treatment’ programme being undertaken if as a result of violence or child abuse/neglect etc.

The number of young people entering the custodial/secure systems as a result of offending and the links, if any, to the nature and type of offending related to their experiences of domestic violence/child protection issues. The nature of any intervention programmes/therapy/treatment on offer and the assessed outcomes.

To follow up with qualitative research (through interview and questionnaire) with young people identified through the ASSET process to identify relevant case history and any prior agency referrals.

A follow up on all those young people who have entered the CJS as a result of domestic violence, outcomes from any ‘treatment/therapy’ undertaken, and a review of progress, problem recurrence etc on the completion of the treatment/containment/accommodation episode.

4. IMPLICATIONS

An agreement to be included in the application for European funding has already been signed, based on a matched funding of 30,000 Euros, (£20,000) comprising sums made up of staff time from the Y.O.T. and the D.V. Team. The West Sussex commitment to the partnership is as follows:-

  • To undertake the research as outlined above and to make all information available to the partners.
  • Organise a national/international seminar, hosted by West Sussex in the UK to further the research, information sharing, awareness raising and treatment/therapy options. (March 2003)
  • Attend other symposia arranged by the partners.

Other projected outcomes include:-

  • the raising of the profile of D.V. in relation to the effects on children and young people and the possibilities for enhanced funding for D.V. Teams as a means of ‘crime prevention’.
  • valuable research information to made available on a local and national level.

Terry Bishop

Head of Youth Offending Services

Nov 2002

DAPHNE PRESENTATION

West Sussex 2003-UK

“Does witnessing domestic violence determine a child or young persons pattern of offending and are available interventions effective in reducing these patterns?”

The presentation was made by Terry Bishop, Liz Barnes and Salina Bates of the West Sussex Youth Offending Team and included a brief review of the pilot cohort data, which had been analysed and presented to the re-union in Paris in April 2003. This had involved 113 young people, 73 who had witnessed domestic violent – the outcome of this sample had shown that:-

  • More present and previous violent offences in experimental group (witnessing DV)
  • Significantly more offences committed by experimental group

The experience of the pilot group had demonstrated the need to make some changes in the approach and to widen some aspects of the research:-

  • Need qualitative information from young people.
  • Fuller analysis of related risk areas highlighted between groups.
  • Social Services history.
  • Fuller offence analysis.
  • Equal numbers in control and experimental groups for analysis purposes.

A new cohort had been examined. Those young people entering the Youth Justice System during January to March 2003 were analysed. There were 106 young people – 53 in the control group and 53 in the group who had witnessed domestic violence. 27 of the latter group had been identified as suitable for qualitative interview and follow up.

The average age of the control group was slightly higher than those in the “witnessing group”. Consistent with the profile of young offenders the gender balance was over 4:1 in favour of males in both groups.

The ethnicity of the control matched that of the offending population and general population around 10% but the ethnicity of the “witnessing” group was almost totally “white british”.

This begged the question “why”? The hypotheses at present are around the definition and cultural understanding and tolerance of domestic violence and the willingness to discuss family issues openly in the context of an ASSET assessment.

The presentation drew attention to the issues of assessing information and identified certain areas of tension.

  • ‘Ownership’ of the project within the wider operational team
  • Sensitivity of issue with certain young people
  • Young person not wishing to talk about and share experiences
  • Linking experiences to behaviour?
  • Orders close before interview can be done – especially with final warning cases
  • Orders breached/transferred before interview can be done
  • Long wait to interview young people in custody

Two brief case studies touched on the issues of:-

1.The sensitivity around not raising such an issue when other more immediate issues need to be dealt with against a background of mental health, self-harm and self esteem problems.

2.The absence/difficulty of making links between previous experience and current behaviour by the young person concerned.

The presentation included the list of offences classed as “violent”.

  • Murder
  • Manslaughter
  • Death by dangerous driving
  • Death by aggravated vehicle taking
  • Endangering life
  • Possession of weapons
  • Harassment
  • Public Order
  • Cruelty to/neglect of children
  • Abduction
  • Assault on constable
  • Common assault
  • Wounding
  • Actual bodily harm
  • Grievous bodily harm
  • Racially/religiously aggravated offences

…..and then exposed the findings of the sampling related to their previous violent offences, current violence offences and total offending profile.

In all cases where there was an admission of witnessing D.V. the incidence of violent offences – past and present, and total offending was increased by a significant amount.


An explanation was given of the ASSET assessment and how it covered 13 main “risk” areas – one of which raised the issue of “witnessing family violence”.


Some comparative work had been done with all young people entering the system to try to identify common areas of risk – the findings over a 12-month period were displayed.

Following on from the pilot cohort research further work had been done on the new sample related to ASSET scores.


An interesting pattern emerged showing significantly higher “risk” scores in certain areas relating to the “witnessing” group. In no risk area did the control group outscore the main cohort. The areas of main difference were:-

  • Family and personal
  • Living arrangements
  • Education
  • Lifestyle
  • Emotional and mental health
  • Perception of self and others

The meeting was asked to report back any local findings, information or evidence in answer to the question.

What is YOUR experience of risk assessment outcomes related to the witnessing of domestic violence?

The “care” status of the total sample had been examined. Not surprisingly those in the witnessing group showed a far greater involvement with welfare services across a range of interventions (having/had a social worker to being Looked After).

The research continues and aims to have a sample of cases covering a 9-month period for full analysis and investigation.

Specific actions between June and September include:

  • April to June 2003 – cohort number 2
  • Focus on interviews using the semi-structured questionnaire for more detailed analysis of the relationship between D.V. and offending.
  • Link results of cohort 1 and 2 for fuller picture
  • Further up-date in Spain…

Issues to be addressed also include:

  • Extension of the analysis to identify other possible triggers for violent offences, e.g.Drugs,Anger management etc.and compare these with the same cohort.
  • To further compare ASSET data for similarities/disparities with control groups.

TSB

26.6.03