1. MORE HASTE, LESS SPEED? Evaluation of Fast Track Feb 2003 – Jan 2005
Universities of
Glasgow
Stirling
Strathclyde

2. A. New approach for children’s hearings to tackle youth crime
TWO STRANDS
A. New approach for children’s hearings to tackle youth crime
What works?
Evidence-based policy and practice

3. Innovation and evaluation
New policy or service
Pilot
Evaluate
Evidence of
lack of success
Evidence of success
CARRY ON
ROLL OUT
STOP !
MODIFY
(AND CARRY ON)

4. Children’s hearings and crime
Children’s hearings not courts deal with nearly all offences by young people age < 16 years, where compulsory measures may be required
The processes for dealing with offences are the same as for other ‘grounds of referral’ to the hearings (e.g. care and protection concerns)
Reporters handle referrals; lay panel members make decisions
Decisions should be made giving paramount consideration to the welfare of the child or young person

5. and persistent offending
Children’s hearings
and persistent offending
Young people who persistently offend account for a large % crime (and hence trouble to society)
Persistent offending is a risk factor for adult/life-course offending
Hearings have been regarded as ‘ineffective’ in dealing with persistent offending (though so have other systems too)
Delays in response encourage repeat offending

6. POLICY IMPLICATIONS FAST TRACK
Improve (risk) assessment
Target interventions on young people who
persistently offend
Speed up processes
FAST TRACK

7. The Fast Track Pilot Aims [Targets] reduce time taken for decisions
[maximum duration for each stage in all cases]
promote comprehensive assessments
[all cases with risk assessment – YLS or ASSET]
ensure access to appropriate programmes
[each young person - specific plan; a programme when needed]
reduce re-offending

8. 5 or more offence referrals in 6 months
The Fast Track Pilot
Criterion
5 or more offence referrals in 6 months OR
reporter discretion

9. East, North and South Ayrshire East Lothian and Scottish Borders
The Fast Track Pilot
3 SITES – 6 AUTHORITIES
Dundee
East, North and South Ayrshire
East Lothian and Scottish Borders
Began February 2003

10. The Fast Track Pilot ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Mainly went to reporters, local authority social work
and voluntary agencies
Small amounts for police and for panel member training
Most spending was on:
front line reporters and social work personnel IT
admin support
specialist services e.g. youth offending schemes, mentors

11. The Fast Track Pilot Like all areas in Scotland, the pilots had
received additional Youth Justice funding in the previous few years
Expenditure on individual cases continued to be
mainly from other sources, with the single largest component
being residential and secure accommodation
The policy innovation had multiple components
affecting several sets of agencies and decision-makers
superimposed on a complex web of decision-making and services

12. THE EVALUATION Purpose to assess effectiveness,
including cost effectiveness
Comparison in similar authorities
of policies, service inputs and
persistent offending cases
Multi-stranded – data types and sources

13. Comparison sites’ approaches to youth crime
The Comparison: I
PILOT
COMPARISON
POPULATION
714,300
665,000
UNEMPLOYMENT
FREE SCHOOL MEALS
SCHOOL EXCLUSION
HEARINGS REFERRALS
SIMILAR
RANGES
Comparison sites’ approaches to youth crime
were varied

14. The Comparison: II OFFENCE REFERRALS 01/02 02/03 2,060 2,925
PILOT
COMPARISON
OFFENCE
REFERRALS
01/ /03
2, ,925
1, ,866
42% increase
8% increase

15. Research Elements Key contact interviews
Key contact information
SCRA RAD data
Case questionnaire survey
Cost –effectiveness data
Service provider study
Intensive case study
42 x 2/3
= 223
MAIN
SAMPLE
111, 142, 151 84 58
10 x 3/4

16. PERSISTENT OFFENDING CASES
FAST TRACK CASES
In first 18 months
Two thirds aged 14-15
PERSISTENT OFFENDING CASES
IN COMPARISON SITES
In first 18 months
Similar age pattern
Source: SCRA Update

17. FAST TRACK CASES Supervision
Just over half (55%) on supervision at the start
Just under one in five ceased being on supervision
Just over one in five began supervision after flagging
One fifth – no supervision during Fast track
Source: Main Sample

18. TIME-SCALES Fast Track did speed up processing of cases
Evidence showed that police, reporters and social workers
provided reports and took decisions more quickly
in Fast Track areas
compared with previously
compared with other authorities/forces
Targets met in 90%+ cases
Fast Track did speed up processing of cases

19. Issue of electronic transfer of reports from police and social work
Technological, operational and ethical
considerations

20. RISK ASSESSMENT Use of YLS or ASSET
Pilot site cases - nearly all (95%)
Comparison sites – only one third
Source: Case questionnaires

21. ASESSMENTS AND ACTION PLANS
Reporters and panel members mostly saw these as
improved, more comprehensive and specific
Some social workers thought that the time-pressures
threatened the quality and thoroughness of work done
Source: Key contacts and case questionnaires

22. SERVICE/TIME INPUTS
Comparison site cases had higher proportions of both low and high service time inputs (under 5hrs per week or over 11 hrs). Use of voluntary agencies occurred in fewer cases
Twice as many young people in Pilot sites (40%) attended a standard programme as in Comparison sites (20%)
Source: Cost sub-sample and
case questionnaire information

23. SERVICE COSTS: COMPARISON
Mean expenditure per case for young people
living in the community
Fast track cases £8,200
Comparison cases £9,200
Mean expenditure for young people
accommodated residentially
Fast track cases £87,300
Comparison cases £95,500
Source: Key informant information

24. VIEWS OF FAST TRACK Good inter-agency collaboration
Key contacts welcomed:
concerted attention to offending
additional resources
emphasis on faster action
“All children’s hearings should be like this”
Improved time-scales, assessments, action plans
Good inter-agency collaboration
Source: Key contacts

25. VIEWS OF FAST TRACK
In most cases, panel members believed Fast Track had
promoted a focus on offending
BUT not adversely affected
attention to young people’s needs
A minority of social work respondents believed
that attention to Fast Track had diverted
resources away from other work
Source: Case questionnaires

26. Perceived impacts Source: case questionnaires
Intervention in FT cases seen by panel members to have:
Positive impact on young person - half
Mixed impact – quarter
Made little difference – nearly a quarter
Intervention seen by reporters as very effective in
32% of FT cases
26% of Comparison cases
Source: case
questionnaires

27. Risk offending changes
YLS + ASSET SCORES
2+ occasions
N = 146
Increased 10%
Stable 56%
Decreased 34%
Source: Key informants

28. Reasons for exit. Improved/responded. 70%. Adult system. 16%
Reasons for exit Improved/responded 70% Adult system 16% Not improved/responded 9%
N = 88
Source: Key informant information

29. Changes in offending Source: RAD data on Main sample
The samples in Fast Track and comparison areas were not matched,
but there were only slight differences as regards
age, gender, living situation and prior offending
Source: RAD data on Main sample

30. Changes in offending
The study data showed that there had been a significant
decrease in offending for young people in Fast Track X
BUT:
the reduction was even greater in comparison sites ?
Source: RAD data on Main sample

31. DATA ON OFFENDING: COMPARISON
% of young people whose offending reduced
or not
Decrease (FT) 69%
Decrease (C) 81%
Increase (FT) %
Increase (C) 14%
Source: RAD and Main sample

32. DATA ON OFFENDING: COMPARISON
Mean number of offences
Source: RAD and Main sample

33. Changes in offending
Therefore SCRA were asked to carry out an analysis for
all cases of persistent offending
(where enough time had elapsed for follow up)

34. DATA ON OFFENDING: COMPARISON
Changes in numbers of offences
after ‘implementation’ compared with before
Fast Track
Comparison
All Scotland
Down 32%
Down 55%
Down 42%
Changes in numbers of offence referrals
after ‘implementation’ compared with before
Fast Track
Comparison
All Scotland
Down 32%
Down 54%
Down 41%
Source: SCRA

35. The Executive decided to discontinue Fast Track
and concentrate instead on Standards

36. CONCLUSIONS Fast track worked well in speeding up procedures
Assessment, action plans and inter-agency co-operation
were widely reported to have improved
Some improvements diffused beyond persistent offending
Transfer of information was problematic in some respects
There was wide support for seriousness as well as
persistence in offending to underpin targeting
Official evidence of offending indicated that reductions
in Fast Track cases were less than elsewhere

37. Possible explanations
Perhaps variations in police practice accounted for the difference
It may have been too soon to judge Setting up period; short follow-up
Comparison site lower numbers: a tribute to early intervention?
Comparison sites – able to focus resources on fewer cases
The time and effort spent on assessment and report writing
was at the cost of direct intervention
Did some Fast track cases receive too many interventions?
Too small % of funds spent on community based interventions
Too little attention given to neighbourhood work,
education and health services, residential provision etc.

38. QUESTIONS ARISING on Evidence-based Policy
How wise is it to base policy decisions on official offending data?
“Official data…depend strongly on police efforts and
the willingness of victims to report crime.
They are also affected by political and police priorities”
Van der Laan and Smit 2006
How can evaluations of complex policies best be carried out?
For a reasonable price?
How should policy-makers balance varied evidence about
processes and outcomes?
Does evidence of ‘success’ receive as close a scrutiny as
evidence of ‘failure’?