How Get the Data analysis is improving case management in the youth justice system

New theories and evidence bases have led to well-intentioned system change.

Using data analysis to measure the effectiveness of new approaches is crucial for deciding which areas need improvement and investment, according to Jack Cattell, social impact analyst and co-founder of Get the Data.

Cattell says that important questions to ask of the system include: “Is it helping to create more positive outcomes for young people? Is it fair? Do youth justice professionals understand the approach? Is its potential realised?”

For example, the risk-oriented assessment model Asset was a factor in a surge in young people entering the youth justice system following its 1999 roll-out, potentially causing negative outcomes.

After research in 2010 by criminologists Lesley McAra and Susan McVie suggested that further offending can result from entering the system, changes were put in place to tackle the hike, and numbers continue to decline today (in 2020/21, the number of under 18s in youth custody were fifth of what they were in 2008/09).

In 2017, academic researcher, Kathy S Hampson, published an article that questioned the effectiveness of Asset’s successor AssetPlus, a desistance-led assessment model newly deployed by the Youth Justice Board (YJB).

Introduced between 2015 and 2017, AssetPlus uses an integrated assessment and planning process to create a record that follows a child through the youth justice system.

AssetPlus, the framework in use today, was intended to identify and develop strengths and protective factors for young people that could help reduce their reoffending.

According to Hampson, it was intended that practitioners would also develop better relationships with young people which would facilitate them to “both create a new non-offending self-narrative and build greater social capital to increase opportunities for social inclusion”.

However, early on in the process, Hampson found that youth justice practitioners struggled to apply desistance theory, resulting in “business as usual assessments and deficit-focused interventions”.

In addition, strengths were mentioned but were lost at an early stage in the assessment narrative.

The researcher concluded that a genuine sea-change would take a long time and require consistency of application. She suggested that YJB inspections themselves should apply desistance-focused criteria, enabling a culture that would be passed on by Youth Offending Team managers to their staff, “who in turn will be able to justify working differently, and positively, with children and young people”.

In 2018, the YJB commissioned Get the Data to assess the impact of AssetPlus on a range of outcomes since its implementation, and the final report was published in May 2022.

Findings

Key findings from Get the Data’s detailed evaluation, were:

• Practitioners took too long to carry out assessments. For example, an initial assessment on average took 603 minutes at baseline, 710 minutes after 12 months and 947 minutes after 18 months.

• The number of concerns in a child’s life increased slightly following their initial assessments, when these were expected to decrease.

• This phenomenon was more marked in more vulnerable children, highlighting the need to monitor and regularly review their concerns.

• AssetPlus was expected to increase compliance with orders and the data confirmed this. The analysis found a reduction in breach rates of approximately one percentage point (from 10.6 per cent to 9.6 per cent).

• The proportion of children remanded in custody remained relatively stable, despite an expected decrease.

Implications

The report suggested that the YJB:

• Work with YOTs to train workers to identify and limit assessment tasks for some children, while planning a fuller assessment for more vulnerable children.

• Consider reviewing changes across a longer timeframe than the 12-months follow up and ask YOT workers whether changes are recorded and over what time period they should be recorded.

• Build on and maximise improved sentence compliance through a better understanding across all YOTs of what is driving compliance.

• Investigate what is preventing a reduction in the use of remand. Ask magistrates and judges about their attitudes towards and understanding of AssetPlus, what evidence would assist their decision-making, and how evidence from AssetPlus could be better communicated.

• Review significant data limitations to identify where future investment is required to provide outcome data for monitoring and evaluation.

• The capacity to measure robustly re-offending outcomes through Police National Computer data should be a future YJB priority.

Following the publication of the evaluation, YJB chair Keith Fraser acknowledged the advantages and areas where AssetPlus “must improve”.

Cattell says: “Our evaluation may appear to show only slight improvements but on the ground this means hundreds more children and young people were more motivated to receive support because of AssetPlus. This is a very positive outcome.

“Of course, it also highlighted areas for improvement.

“There are many insights available through good analysis of the youth justice system’s data that can be used to guide further improvements and positively impact young people’s lives.”

For more information click here.